Watching World News ?

[snowheight]

snowy wrote: Which of my words can you quote as "claiming that all perspectives are merely objectification that serves no purpose at all"?

Gang, not to get between a fascinating argument--but I'm actually pondering this exact point these days. Wondering whether any individual perspectives are indeed important?

A couple of years ago, I used to think that of course they were important and that made me feel warm and fuzzy inside. Everything that I did was so relevant. And I get that perspectives are important to the 'jiva' or the individual. But once it's clear that the individual is...well.... apparent....then the perspectives also seem apparent. Kinda like nightly dreams, some are good, some are bad--but ultimately, they don't matter much. Or like thoughts, they come and go...

I'll be the first to admit that this sounds pretty radical 'neo-ad'---but there you have it. Waking up is hard to do.. dum dum....(singing to Beatles--Breaking up is hard to do.....)

Anyway, would love any and all individual perspectives on this issue!

The perspective is entirely defined by what the perspective is on. Is that "important"?

[snowheight]

The UP's are obviously objectifiable, but what they are on, is not, which, of course, puts the object of the UP into a context of being a sort of approximation, because the UP is really only defined relative to what the UP is on, which, in turn, defies any definition, much less is subject to any objectification.

It's funny to note that even denying the possibility of objectifying the commonality of our perspectives involves objectifying it. This is the nature of pointing, as all pointing points beyond (or prior-to) the subject-object split, but all pointing is done with ideas and language which are all dependent upon the split to begin with. The best that the fact of perspective can do is put us on notice of the commonality ever out of reach of objectification.

As clear as mud

[Enlightened2B]

SH, not looking to debate trivial things here. So, I'll respond quickly to a couple of your points. I can gladly admit that I might be wrong if I misinterpreted your post.

So, do you think that the word nondual does refer to an object?

Does it really matter? Not to me it doesn't. I don't see the significance of this question other than to start debating more trivial stuff. I'm editing my post by adding this. What the 'non-dual' teachings point to of course, does not refer to an object, but this is why non-duality is such a subjective term and does not have one definitive meaning. You have traditional non-duality teachings like Vedanta, you have more neo-non-duality teachings, you have emptiness teachings which are a form of non-duality and probably others that I am unaware of. Then you have other forms of spirituality which resonate with NDE's which is also a form of non-duality which resonates the most with me at this point. While some of the other teachings resonate with me as well, such as traditional Vedanta to a degree, my perspective on reality is far different than merely defining 'what non-duality refers to'. So, I can't answer your question until we come to an agreement on what non-duality is. I see reality as 'One' at its core. What we are at our core, as this 'oneness'....is clearly not an object. So, that's my take on your question.

No, what I wrote was that all ideas and language depend on the subject/object split, not that all conversation was objectification. Two different ideas. What I wrote was to acknowledge that the statement "the word nondual does not refer to an object" is, facially a recursive self negation.

Ok, if you say so.

No, I never wrote that all conversation was, as you wrote, objectification and that that meant that we should all stop posting on an internet forum about "what we are" (all, your words).

No, what I wrote was that metaphorical terms such as "Self", "Source" or "oversoul" (and sometimes even "consciousness" and/or "awareness") can be useful in certain contexts, but that what is referenced by "not two" isn't an object and can't be defined once and for all and with finality by that sort of expression.

absolutely, but words are all we have here relatively speaking, so I have no problem defining it as Source.

If you meant to write that I implied that (which you didn't btw), then, what, exactly did I write that implied it?

Actually, I did. Re-reread the quote. Regardless, that was how I took it based on my own interpretation and guess what? Maybe I'm wrong. You've explained yourself above already, so not much else I can say here.

I asked you this question in reply:

What image, specifically, of what the word nondual refers do you believe that I harbor and am trying to "match up" the thread contents with? What of my words can you use to describe this image?

I already expressed this to you in the previous post and I'm not repeating it. It was a combination of what you said in this particular thread and from what you indicated in the other thread to Kathleen. I can bring up the other thread if you'd like and I can show you how you corrected Kathleen for her use of the definition of non-duality in that particular thread, but I see it as completely unnecessary for me to do that right now. I remember that post very well, because you and I had posted to each other in that thread and that post stood out to me for some reason as some very similar topic of conversation as we are having here. No, my memory is pretty keen on this.

And your answer has absolutely nothing to do with any image that I've created with my words.

This "image of non-duality" is a creation of your mind, not mine.

[/quote][/quote]

ok, if you say so

SH, again, I'm not looking to debate you here. Your post was a bit difficult to understand on a first read. I interpreted it a certain way and I still don't understand the reference for your post in the context of this thread, but it is what it is. I responded on a whim and didn't really think much before responding which I've been doing more of late and sometimes I'm just intuitively wrong. So, it happens.

[runstrails]

Thanks dj and Snowy for your perspectives. . I'll start another thread on my perspective on perspective, so as to not derail this thread.

[Phil2]

Science is the art of objectification btw. No objectification, no science. Science and nondual are two different words that refer to two different topics.

Yes, this is correct, there can be no science without creating 'concepts' ie. 'objects' ... this means that duality is created: the 'object' and the 'observer' of this object ... and science postulates that the object is independent of the observer, ie. this 'object' is given an 'autonomy' and repetitive patterns of behaviour called 'scientific laws' ... this process of 'objectification' is called 'reification' (which literally means "to make things") ... and this is how thought (and 'knowledge') operates, by creating objects and repetition (hence time) ...

When David Chalmers declares his intention to create a "Science of Consciousness", one could wonder if this is not self-contradictory ... can there be a science of consciousness ? Can consciousness ever be 'independent' of the 'observer' ? ... and subjected to time and repetition ?

??

[dijmart]

Science is the art of objectification btw. No objectification, no science. Science and nondual are two different words that refer to two different topics.

Yes, this is correct, there can be no science without creating 'concepts' ie. 'objects' ... this means that duality is created: the 'object' and the 'observer' of this object ... and science postulates that the object is independent of the observer, ie. this 'object' is given an 'autonomy' and repetitive patterns of behaviour called 'scientific laws' ... this process of 'objectification' is called 'reification' (which literally means "to make things") ... and this is how thought (and 'knowledge') operates, by creating objects and repetition (hence time) ...

My take is that the observer is the observed, the observer and the observed are one. So, duality is only created within a mind that "thinks" there's duality, that's the illusion. Once you get over the illusion, then It doesn't matter if there are objects or not, my body is still here, although I know all is one. I may even have an astral body after this, that also separates, but still all is one. Science does objectify, but still all is one.

[Phil2]

My take is that the observer is the observed, the observer and the observed are one. So, duality is only created within a mind that "thinks" there's duality, that's the illusion.

Right, as soon as thought operates duality is created ...

"The observer is the observed" is a famous quote from J.Krishnamurti ... but often misunderstood by most Krishnamurti followers ... though Krishnamurti himself never admitted to call his teachings 'non-duality' or 'Advaita' despite his Indian origin ... he always denied the existence of a Self (or Atman) because he said this was yet another 'concept' invented by 'conditioned' thought ...

[Enlightened2B]

Science is the art of objectification btw. No objectification, no science. Science and nondual are two different words that refer to two different topics.

Yes, this is correct, there can be no science without creating 'concepts' ie. 'objects' ... this means that duality is created: the 'object' and the 'observer' of this object ... and science postulates that the object is independent of the observer, ie. this 'object' is given an 'autonomy' and repetitive patterns of behaviour called 'scientific laws' ... this process of 'objectification' is called 'reification' (which literally means "to make things") ... and this is how thought (and 'knowledge') operates, by creating objects and repetition (hence time) ...

When David Chalmers declares his intention to create a "Science of Consciousness", one could wonder if this is not self-contradictory ... can there be a science of consciousness ? Can consciousness ever be 'independent' of the 'observer' ? ... and subjected to time and repetition ?

I think it's important to question the origin of consciousness, because I think duality itself, is a belief, but it's something that's not overly important to me anymore. I'm not so sure I even understand the 'observer/observed' science experiments. I think it's slightly misinterpreted by people into 'pop physics' as someone else on this board labeled it recently, if you ask me as it gives the notion that consciousness appearing through a human is the only way an object can exist in its right which I think is an extreme view, just as materialism is the other extreme. It essentially fails to take into account that perhaps, particles are alive themselves in their own right. I would agree that there could be no measurements recorded without a human observer....aka....what some people call...conscious observer. Yet, people tend to anthropomorphize human consciousness or Consciousness experiencing through a human vehicle when I would say that humans are merely one highly evolved avenue of experience only.

On the other hand, a simple way to go beyond duality, without relying on science experiments, is simply meditation or self inquiry where we go beyond thought and there's only 'presence' there. Granted, this is not an objectification like science is, but for me, it's a more accurate way to see my nature than to get lost in scientific concepts that perhaps are not very accurate.

[dijmart]

My take is that the observer is the observed, the observer and the observed are one. So, duality is only created within a mind that "thinks" there's duality, that's the illusion.

Right, as soon as thought operates duality is created ...

This is not what I meant. I meant, if one knows that duality is ultimately an illusion, then even if thought appears dual, for communication or other purposes it doesn't necessarily mean it IS dual or creating duality, within the mind of the thinker, because the illusion of separation is not operating.

[snowheight]

SH, not looking to debate trivial things here. So, I'll respond quickly to a couple of your points. I can gladly admit that I might be wrong if I misinterpreted your post.

So, do you think that the word nondual does refer to an object?

Does it really matter? Not to me it doesn't. I don't see the significance of this question other than to start debating more trivial stuff. I'm editing my post by adding this. What the 'non-dual' teachings point to of course, does not refer to an object, but this is why non-duality is such a subjective term and does not have one definitive meaning. You have traditional non-duality teachings like Vedanta, you have more neo-non-duality teachings, you have emptiness teachings which are a form of non-duality and probably others that I am unaware of. Then you have other forms of spirituality which resonate with NDE's which is also a form of non-duality which resonates the most with me at this point. While some of the other teachings resonate with me as well, such as traditional Vedanta to a degree, my perspective on reality is far different than merely defining 'what non-duality refers to'. So, I can't answer your question until we come to an agreement on what non-duality is. I see reality as 'One' at its core. What we are at our core, as this 'oneness'....is clearly not an object. So, that's my take on your question.

No, what I wrote was that all ideas and language depend on the subject/object split, not that all conversation was objectification. Two different ideas. What I wrote was to acknowledge that the statement "the word nondual does not refer to an object" is, facially a recursive self negation.

Ok, if you say so.

No, I never wrote that all conversation was, as you wrote, objectification and that that meant that we should all stop posting on an internet forum about "what we are" (all, your words).

No, what I wrote was that metaphorical terms such as "Self", "Source" or "oversoul" (and sometimes even "consciousness" and/or "awareness") can be useful in certain contexts, but that what is referenced by "not two" isn't an object and can't be defined once and for all and with finality by that sort of expression.

absolutely, but words are all we have here relatively speaking, so I have no problem defining it as Source.

If you meant to write that I implied that (which you didn't btw), then, what, exactly did I write that implied it?

Actually, I did. Re-reread the quote. Regardless, that was how I took it based on my own interpretation and guess what? Maybe I'm wrong. You've explained yourself above already, so not much else I can say here.

I asked you this question in reply:

What image, specifically, of what the word nondual refers do you believe that I harbor and am trying to "match up" the thread contents with? What of my words can you use to describe this image?

I already expressed this to you in the previous post and I'm not repeating it. It was a combination of what you said in this particular thread and from what you indicated in the other thread to Kathleen. I can bring up the other thread if you'd like and I can show you how you corrected Kathleen for her use of the definition of non-duality in that particular thread, but I see it as completely unnecessary for me to do that right now. I remember that post very well, because you and I had posted to each other in that thread and that post stood out to me for some reason as some very similar topic of conversation as we are having here. No, my memory is pretty keen on this.

And your answer has absolutely nothing to do with any image that I've created with my words.

This "image of non-duality" is a creation of your mind, not mine.

[/quote]

ok, if you say so

SH, again, I'm not looking to debate you here. Your post was a bit difficult to understand on a first read. I interpreted it a certain way and I still don't understand the reference for your post in the context of this thread, but it is what it is. I responded on a whim and didn't really think much before responding which I've been doing more of late and sometimes I'm just intuitively wrong. So, it happens. [/quote]

(** shakes head sadly **)

[Phil2]

My take is that the observer is the observed, the observer and the observed are one. So, duality is only created within a mind that "thinks" there's duality, that's the illusion.

Right, as soon as thought operates duality is created ...

This is not what I meant. I meant, if one knows that duality is ultimately an illusion, then even if thought appears dual, for communication or other purposes it doesn't necessarily mean it IS dual or creating duality, within the mind of the thinker, because the illusion of separation is not operating.

Di,

With WHOM do you want to "communicate" when there is no duality ?

??

[Phil2]

But it would be like trying to explain the images and sounds you see and hear on the screen and loudspeakers of a tv set by exploring the content of the tv receiver ... nowhere in the tv set you can find those images and sounds, simply because those images come from outside the tv device, in the electro-magnetic waves surrounding all around ...

So the body and its brain is used by consciousness more like a 'receptor' than as a 'creator' of reality ... and it is a very hi-tech device too ... yet merely a device in consciousness ...

Coming back to the original topic of this thread, this is exactly what modern science (so-called 'neuro-science') is currently trying to do: to find consciousness by examining the content and the functioning of the brain ... they postulate that consciousness arises out of the brain, which is of course the fundamental mistake ... this is why neuro-science is doomed to fail in this endeavour ... consciousness is not more in the brain than the images displayed on the TV screen would be found in the TV set ...

This is the biggest mistake of science, postulating that matter exists independently of the observer (ie. consciousness) ... giving rise to 'autonomous' objects (and time associated to their repetitive behaviour and 'laws') ... and this is the root of 'materialism' too ... creating a world in which the human being becomes an 'alien' ... an 'object' ...

[smiileyjen101]

Interesting thread weaving in and out and unfolding (as it does)

Phil2 said: This is the biggest mistake of science, postulating that matter exists independently of the observer (ie. consciousness) ... giving rise to 'autonomous' objects (and time associated to their repetitive behaviour and 'laws') ... and this is the root of 'materialism' too ... creating a world in which the human being becomes an 'alien' ... an 'object' ...

Why do you call it the "biggest mistake" then?
It's just unfolding awareness unfolding in / as individual aspects being picked up and received - isn't it?

Oh dear that likely makes no sense. I'll just sidle over and join Snowy in the naughty corner.
Btw folks - Snowy started his post with ... "It's funny how....." and yet it was all taken so finitely cognitively / intellectually seriously without 'feeling' (Snowy, I went by feel and your beginning gave me the (music) score to flow with.)

Sometimes we get analytically (left brain) besotted with a particular aspect of one of the characters in/on our tv screens, not realising that our tv screens are not as multi-dimensional as all the energies flowing into / through it that our right brain is far more able to absorb without words. I liked what Rach said

Relax ... stay with it ... and wait for the mud to settle.

Swimming in mud can be fun too!
......

[Phil2]

Phil2 said: This is the biggest mistake of science, postulating that matter exists independently of the observer (ie. consciousness) ... giving rise to 'autonomous' objects (and time associated to their repetitive behaviour and 'laws') ... and this is the root of 'materialism' too ... creating a world in which the human being becomes an 'alien' ... an 'object' ...

Why do you call it the "biggest mistake" then?
It's just unfolding awareness unfolding in / as individual aspects being picked up and received - isn't it?

It is always a 'mis-take' to take our dreams for a reality ... in the original sense of the term 'mistake' ... ie. taking things for what they are NOT ...

[smiileyjen101]

(you cannot post so soon after your last post )

E2B said: Many NDE'rs will claim that the smallest acts of love and compassion are valued highly in the Life Review process while many other experiences seem to be less important such as attaining a high job title. It's those acts of love which represent being at a higher vibration, more aligned with Source, that I would say in my own opinion, are likely the purpose of our physical existence. The opportunity to overcome hardships and still be and express that unconditional love.

'Nuance alert' imho & interpretation of the transmissions at high (beyond high) voltage

Nuance 1.We [u]are love and compassion[/u] - love and compassion energy is our source and the source of all consciousness, of everything. When all else falls away the 'aha' of being who we already are is 'recognisable' as pure, un-masked, un-tainted, un-ignorant, un-fearful and un-insulated be that in nuance of thought or action. All the rest is just costumes and props. In the light all else is seen just as costumes and props and opportunities to be love, who we are doesn't go anywhere, we just dress over it --- make sense so far?

Nuance 2. Therefore based on understanding nuance 1 - there is no sense of 'hardships' to overcome. Overcoming is standing apart from, wanting to 'correct' what is, whereas love already is everything. So the opportunity is to be love and compassion - not to correct anything or overcome anything - it's more like swimming in the mud if mud is where you are - accepting mud as it is, enjoying the mud for its own beauty and appreciating - being aware of - the opportunity to be love in mud, or love in grief, or love in anger, or love in danger, or love in 'whatever'.

The beauty of seeing this in the light review is that you can also see beyond the costumes and props of everything/one else as well, knowing that under the costumes and props of their 'appearance' and 'experiences' and 'expressions' it's all differing degrees of awareness, capacity and willingness to be love, or not. And truly, truly truly no choice is wrong because love loves everything. The stuff that doesn't figure in life reviews is the stuff that falls away. Love never dies. Love is eternal. Love is who we all are underneath it all.

For me, all I saw was opportunities to be love and compassion, not 'hardships'. And this can be in the day to day stuff that we take for granted and do not appreciate, as well as the things that call on more of who we really are to sustain us.

Make sense?