Watching World News ?

[dijmart]

Personally I don't want to risk a headache ... must be my 'defense system' operating here ...

I'm more stubborn The headache arose for me on the third try to understand and I said screw it! Oh well Phil, we aren't meant to know

[Phil2]

Personally I don't want to risk a headache ... must be my 'defense system' operating here ...

I'm more stubborn The headache arose for me on the third try to understand and I said screw it!

But you don't have my experience Di, I immediately sense the danger (must be my 'third eye' or my 'sixth sense') and I keep far away from it ... don't even give it a 'try' ...

[dijmart]

But you don't have my experience Di, I immediately sense the danger (must be my 'third eye') and I keep far away from it ... don't even give it a 'try' ...

Immediately sense the danger..lol..too funny.

[snowheight]

... also I have a natural repulsion against complex theories and explanations (and very long postings too ) ... I love simplicity ... this is perhaps why I like Mooji so much "the lazy man's way to enlightenment" ...

Simply put, nonduality doesn't refer to an object, but lots of the content in the thread, did.

[dijmart]

... also I have a natural repulsion against complex theories and explanations (and very long postings too ) ... I love simplicity ... this is perhaps why I like Mooji so much "the lazy man's way to enlightenment" ...

Simply put, nonduality doesn't refer to an object, but lots of the content in the thread, did.

Oh...why didn't you just say so...hehe

Now that I know what you said, non-duality is just that and nothing is outside of it. To make objects outside of it, would be to create duality, just flipped from what it was before or prior to awakening. Another words, non-duality includes the un-manifest and the manifest, as far as I'm concerned.

[Enlightened2B]

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.

Ahh....neo-advaita outlook at its finest.

[Enlightened2B]

Simply put, nonduality doesn't refer to an object, but lots of the content in the thread, did.

Snowheight, I think every one of us here in this thread would fully agree with the bolded part of your post here.

But, the next part that is not bolded is quite a dogmatic view on what non-duality should be in my opinion, and I say according to who? According to the limited perspective that claims such? All of our perspectives are limited, but just because what one person writes here in this thread, might not match with your own image of non-duality, does not invalidate the perspective. Anything we discuss is merely objectification. Just because non-duality (or what non-duality refers to) is beyond concept/thought, does that mean we should we all just stop posting and conversing on this type of an internet forum?

[snowheight]

... also I have a natural repulsion against complex theories and explanations (and very long postings too ) ... I love simplicity ... this is perhaps why I like Mooji so much "the lazy man's way to enlightenment" ...

Simply put, nonduality doesn't refer to an object, but lots of the content in the thread, did.

Oh...why didn't you just say so...hehe

Now that I know what you said, non-duality is just that and nothing is outside of it. To make objects outside of it, would be to create duality, just flipped from what it was before or prior to awakening. Another words, non-duality includes the un-manifest and the manifest, as far as I'm concerned.

"Outside of it" is a great example. The mind is a trickster, but objectification has at it's root the notion of a boundary, of encapsulation, and the word nondual points away from that.

[snowheight]

Simply put, nonduality doesn't refer to an object, but lots of the content in the thread, did.

Snowheight, I think every one of us here in this thread would fully agree with the bolded part of your post here.

But, the next part that is not bolded is quite a dogmatic view on what non-duality should be in my opinion, and I say according to who? According to the limited perspective that claims such? All of our perspectives are limited, but just because what one person writes here in this thread, might not match with your own image of non-duality, does not invalidate the perspective. Anything we discuss is merely objectification. Just because non-duality (or what non-duality refers to) is beyond concept/thought, does that mean we should we all just stop posting and conversing on this type of an internet forum?

Oh, you felt invalidated by the recognition of the objectification?

[Enlightened2B]

Simply put, nonduality doesn't refer to an object, but lots of the content in the thread, did.

Snowheight, I think every one of us here in this thread would fully agree with the bolded part of your post here.

But, the next part that is not bolded is quite a dogmatic view on what non-duality should be in my opinion, and I say according to who? According to the limited perspective that claims such? All of our perspectives are limited, but just because what one person writes here in this thread, might not match with your own image of non-duality, does not invalidate the perspective. Anything we discuss is merely objectification. Just because non-duality (or what non-duality refers to) is beyond concept/thought, does that mean we should we all just stop posting and conversing on this type of an internet forum?

Oh, you felt invalidated by the recognition of the objectification?

Nope, not at all. I neither claim my perspective to be right, nor not right. It's my own limited take on reality, just like yours is yours. But, I'm willing to accept that I'm not right, as I gain new information/insight in my spiritual journey. What we are is indeed, beyond thought/concept, but that's only part of the picture. That's only the 'ocean/water'. It's learning to actually live the human experience and BE human where our perspectives come to light as beautiful and unique as they are.

On the other hand, just from an outsider observation, it seems that you are reconciling with neo-advaita in your posts by claiming (more or less) that 'because what we are', is beyond concept/thought, therefore, there is no sense in conversing about it, since it only objectifies it. While, this is not necessarily untrue from the greater perspective, why post at all, if you feel this way? You've had quite a lot of posts yourself on this forum including quite in depth ones with layers upon layers in those posts including many posts pertaining to science. I've enjoyed reading many of them, but quite a lot of objectification if you ask me

It's quite easy to bypass human experience by claiming all perspectives as merely 'objectification' which serves no purpose at all, other than to more or less imply that they are invalid, because they simply can never point to 'what is' which I completely disagree with you with. If that were the case, then I'd love to hear your take on how many of us have attained incredible insight from NDE's. There's quite a lot of objectification as you would put it, in NDE's from people who have a FAR better understanding of our nature than either you or I can ever hope to understand in these bodies. Perhaps, you should tell these people that they too, are merely objectifying their experiences

Of course, you have every right to your own perspective as it is equally as valid as my own or anyone else's.

Just my take.

[snowheight]

Oh, you felt invalidated by the recognition of the objectification?

Nope, not at all. I neither claim my perspective to be right, nor not right.

In my opinion, the distinction between "right and non-right" on one hand, and the characterization of a view as "dogmatic" on the other, is one without a difference.

It's my own limited take on reality, just like yours is yours. But, I'm willing to accept that I'm not right, as I gain new information/insight in my spiritual journey. What we are is indeed, beyond thought/concept, but that's only part of the picture. That's only the 'ocean/water'. It's learning to actually live the human experience and BE human where our perspectives come to light as beautiful and unique as they are.

On the other hand, just from an outsider observation, it seems that you are reconciling with neo-advaita in your posts by claiming (more or less) that 'because what we are', is beyond concept/thought, therefore, there is no sense in conversing about it, since it only objectifies it. While, this is not necessarily untrue from the greater perspective, why post at all, if you feel this way? You've had quite a lot of posts yourself on this forum including quite in depth ones with layers upon layers in those posts including many posts pertaining to science. I've enjoyed reading many of them, but quite a lot of objectification if you ask me

It's quite easy to bypass human experience by claiming all perspectives as merely 'objectification' which serves no purpose at all, other than to more or less imply that they are invalid, because they simply can never point to 'what is' which I completely disagree with you with. If that were the case, then I'd love to hear your take on how many of us have attained incredible insight from NDE's. There's quite a lot of objectification as you would put it, in NDE's from people who have a FAR better understanding of our nature than either you or I can ever hope to understand in these bodies. Perhaps, you should tell these people that they too, are merely objectifying their experiences

Of course, you have every right to your own perspective as it is equally as valid as my own or anyone else's.

Just my take.

And what, specifically, in anything that I wrote do you take as stating that "there is no sense in conversing: about what we are"?

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

You've slapped this label of "neo-ad" on my writing twice in this thread alone, and everytime I read that, it just sails right through man. Ain't got nothin' to do with me.

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

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?

[runstrails]

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!

[Enlightened2B]

In my opinion, the distinction between "right and non-right" on one hand, and the characterization of a view as "dogmatic" on the other, is one without a difference.

Dogmatic is an adjective that neither represents right/wrong. I indicated your perspective was dogmatic when you pointed this out:

Simply put, nonduality doesn't refer to an object, but lots of the content in the thread, did.

Note that I never claimed your view wrong, but merely dogmatic in nature. I'll explain at the bottom.

And what, specifically, in anything that I wrote do you take as stating that "there is no sense in conversing: about what we are"?

Here's the post I was referencing:

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.

The point you keep rehashing that anything we talk about via language, ideas, (aka...conversation) is merely objectification...meaning conversation is merely objectification, since language/ideas...IS conversation. What we were doing in this thread before you responded, was conversation, so what else were you possibly referencing, if not the conversation taking place in this particular thread? I was a bit baffled as to how your post relates to the content and context of the thread.

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

Never claimed you directly said this. I said it was implied. But, perhaps it was an exaggeration on my part.

You've slapped this label of "neo-ad" on my writing twice in this thread alone, and everytime I read that, it just sails right through man. Ain't got nothin' to do with me.

Because what you're saying sounds a lot like neo-ad. Not trying to insult you at all or offend you and I apologize if it came across that way, but it is most certainly neo-advaita, unless I'm literally completely mis-interpreting what you're saying here which I wouldn't be the first in this thread to do

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 have no idea what non-duality is, nor is it important to me to define it. When you say this:

Simply put, nonduality doesn't refer to an object, but lots of the content in the thread, did.

The implication is that you have your own interpretation of non-duality that this thread does not match up with since the thread is only pointing to objects. Therefore, I deemed it as dogmatic...meaning...the content in the thread was not non-duality, per your interpretation, while actual non-duality....is something else.

I remember another post of yours a few months back, where you said the exact same thing to Kathleen when she wrote her own idea of non-duality and you replied that her idea was 'not, what non-duality is' in your words. I can find this post if you'd like and post it here. But it's probably not necessary.

Understand that I'm not deeming your perspective to be right nor wrong, but merely pointing out my own observations. Also, I am in full agreement with you as I'm sure everyone in this thread is, that...what we are....is beyond any concept or idea. I think we've all had this awakening on some level. Yet, that ideas/pointers/language are merely objectification, seems irrelevant, especially when it comes to the information I and countless others have gained from learning about NDE's. Tons of objectification there, but has helped me formulate my own perspective as far more inclusive and still expanding than it was previously was.

[dijmart]

I'm actually pondering this exact point these days. Wondering whether any individual perspectives are indeed important?

My perspective to myself is important, maybe someone else's perspective is important to me, maybe not. The only perspective I can truly know without possibly misinterpreting the meaning is my own. Until the day this body dies, I am stuck with my perspective...like it or not.

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'd say your correct, perspectives come and go.. I've witnessed my own perspectives change many times. I'd say though that one's perspectives can change and grow through the hearing of others perspectives whether you agree or not with their perspective. So, if you agree and hadn't prior, then you grew in some way. If you do not agree, then you are more solid in your perspective that, that is not for you, therefore steering you away from that perspective. So, it would seem that throughout life one is moving towards or away from certain perspectives constantly.

[snowheight]

In my opinion, the distinction between "right and non-right" on one hand, and the characterization of a view as "dogmatic" on the other, is one without a difference.

Dogmatic is an adjective that neither represents right/wrong.

Yes, I know that on this point we simply disagree, and that's what I wrote. It's a distinction without a difference.

[I indicated your perspective was dogmatic when you pointed this out:

Simply put, nonduality doesn't refer to an object, but lots of the content in the thread, did.

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

And what, specifically, in anything that I wrote do you take as stating that "there is no sense in conversing: about what we are"?

Here's the post I was referencing:

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.

The point you keep rehashing that anything we talk about via language, ideas, (aka...conversation) is merely objectification...meaning conversation is merely objectification, since language/ideas...IS conversation.

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.

What we were doing in this thread before you responded, was conversation, so what else were you possibly referencing, if not the conversation taking place in this particular thread? I was a bit baffled as to how your post relates to the content and context of the thread.

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.

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

Never claimed you directly said this. I said it was implied. But, perhaps it was an exaggeration on my part.

These were your words:

It's quite easy to bypass human experience by claiming all perspectives as merely 'objectification' which serves no purpose at all, other than to more or less imply that they are invalid, because they simply can never point to 'what is' which I completely disagree with you with. If that were the case, then I'd love to hear your take on how many of us have attained incredible insight from NDE's.

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

You've slapped this label of "neo-ad" on my writing twice in this thread alone, and everytime I read that, it just sails right through man. Ain't got nothin' to do with me.

Because what you're saying sounds a lot like neo-ad. Not trying to insult you at all or offend you and I apologize if it came across that way, but it is most certainly neo-advaita, unless I'm literally completely mis-interpreting what you're saying here which I wouldn't be the first in this thread to do

Well it seems to sound alot like neo-ad to you, but according to you I also apparently wrote some other stuff that I definitely didn't .. .. so, what does "neo-ad" mean to you?

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 have no idea what non-duality is, nor is it important to me to define it. When you say this:

Simply put, nonduality doesn't refer to an object, but lots of the content in the thread, did.

The implication is that you have your own interpretation of non-duality that this thread does not match up with since the thread is only pointing to objects. Therefore, I deemed it as dogmatic...meaning...the content in the thread was not non-duality, per your interpretation, while actual non-duality....is something else.

I remember another post of yours a few months back, where you said the exact same thing to Kathleen when she wrote her own idea of non-duality and you replied that her idea was 'not, what non-duality is' in your words. I can find this post if you'd like and post it here. But it's probably not necessary.

A few months ago? Really? I dunno man, even if we stick to just this thread, in my opinion, your recollection doesn't seem all that keen.

Understand that I'm not deeming your perspective to be right nor wrong, but merely pointing out my own observations. Also, I am in full agreement with you as I'm sure everyone in this thread is, that...what we are....is beyond any concept or idea. I think we've all had this awakening on some level. Yet, that ideas/pointers/language are merely objectification, seems irrelevant, especially when it comes to the information I and countless others have gained from learning about NDE's. Tons of objectification there, but has helped me formulate my own perspective as far more inclusive and still expanding than it was previously was.

You wrote this:

just because what one person writes here in this thread, might not match with your own image of non-duality, does not invalidate the perspective.

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?

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

This "image of non-duality" that, by your words, you think that I have, is a creation of your mind, not mine.