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:
snowheight wrote: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.
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.