TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- Nondualism
Pages (6): [1] 2 3 4 5 6 »

Nondualism

Is anyone else interested in the concept of Nondualism?

quote:

Nondualism may be viewed as the understanding or belief that dualism or dichotomy are illusory phenomena. Examples of dualisms include self/other, mind/body, male/female, good/evil, active/passive, dualism/nondualism and many others. It is accessible as a belief, theory, condition, as part of a tradition, as a practice, or as the quality of union with reality. A nondual philosophical or religious perspective or theory maintains that there is no fundamental distinction between mind and matter, or that the entire phenomenological world is an illusion (with reality being described variously as the Void, the Is, Emptiness, the mind of God, Atman or Brahman). Nontheism provides related conceptual and philosophical information. Many traditions (generally originating in Asia) state that the true condition or nature of reality is nondualistic, and that these dichotomies are either unreal or (at best) inaccurate conveniences. The American philosopher William James saw nondualism as the culmination of the British Empirical tradition, and coined a word for it, sciousness, or consciousness without consciousness of self. But few of his contemporaries accepted his premise that nondualism was prime reality. While attitudes towards the experience of duality and self may vary, nondual traditions converge on the view that the ego, or sense of personal being, doer-ship and control, is ultimately said to be an illusion. As such many nondual traditions have significant overlap with mysticism.

SOURCE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nondualism

I have been reading a lot on Nondualism/Advaita Vedanta for the past year. If anyone else is intrigued by this philosophy, I recommend books by Nisargadatta Maharaj, U.G. Krishnamurti, and Jed Mckenna.

One of the classic philosophical mistakes it to take an insight which is valid in many cases and try to universalize it. It really looks to me like that's what happened here, because while there are certainly plenty of false dichotomies that lots of people believe in, it is equally a mistake to suggest that there are no valid dichotomies.

Just think about how many things can be reduced to ones and zeroes. It doesn't get much more dichotomous than that...

looks like a bunch of pointless mental masturbation to me. Does the "philosophy" have any real world implications or proposals for action?

to me it's more like:

Does any "philosophy" have any real world implications or proposals for action?

This philosophical ideal of reaching a non-dualistic state is by far one of the most daunting challenges while living on earth.

The easiest way to understand this concept of non-duality is by this example:

The non-dualistic approach of two 12 hour periods, where one part is broken up into light, the other 12 hours of darkness.

The Dualistic nature is that there is light and darkness.

The non-dualistic approach is to say that there is a day.

Tie this into living and dieing;
Being awake and dreaming;

Breathing and not breathing;


There are two sides of coin;
With out both sides the coin does not exist.

The non-dualistic approach is the union of two opposites.

Male and female coming together in union. . .
Life and death coming together in union. . .

Here we are and there we go

I also wrote a philosophical discourse on this in another thread as well, but it was about life and death, along with the union of consciousness and unconsciousness.

Might post it here soon

thanks DNA. Well put.

Basically, it's the inclusion of everything, the fullness of reality. Nothing is separate, all is one.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter One of the classic philosophical mistakes it to take an insight which is valid in many cases and try to universalize it. It really looks to me like that's what happened here, because while there are certainly plenty of false dichotomies that lots of people believe in, it is equally a mistake to suggest that there are no valid dichotomies. Just think about how many things can be reduced to ones and zeroes. It doesn't get much more dichotomous than that...

1 + (-1) = 0

(1/2)+(1/2) + (-1) = 0

Two opposite combine to give zero which can be understood mathematically in infinitely many ways.

quote:

Originally posted by we_R_DNA The easiest way to understand this concept of non-duality is by this example: The non-dualistic approach of two 12 hour periods, where one part is broken up into light, the other 12 hours of darkness. The Dualistic nature is that there is light and darkness. The non-dualistic approach is to say that there is a day.

Looks like both dualism and non-dualism are 100% accurate to me. They both describe the same reality. Dualism just goes into a bit more detail.

Wait, don't Nondualism and Dualism form a... Dualism?! OMG, mindfuck!

quote:

Originally posted by Lomeli thanks DNA. Well put. Basically, it's the inclusion of everything, the fullness of reality. Nothing is separate, all is one.

I am stuck though between two worlds;
I am alive and living here on earth;]

The day ends and I go to sleep and have a dream
This seems like a separate place of existence because I am in the world of the abstract.

But the non-dualistic nature helps us realize that dreams are apart of reality. Perhaps the most vital part of reality in my opinion since society keeps preaching that dreams are not real.

Dreams are a reality and are very real, but who is the judge a dream while in the dualistic state of existence.

Where do dreams exist when you are physically talking about something in an abstract realm?

Why has most of humanity out casted dreams as being merely of fantasy?

Here we are on the verge of a union between two dualistic states;
Have you made your dreams a reality?

When dreaming, am I the character in the dream, or the source of the dream? Am I both?

These are the questions that should be asked.

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt Looks like both dualism and non-dualism are 100% accurate to me. They both describe the same reality. Dualism just goes into a bit more detail.

Yes, both philosophies describe reality;

Dualistic philosophy - separates reality into two completely distinct states of existence.

Non-Dualistic philosophy - Creates the Union between two completely distinct states of existence.

I think that since human civilization depends predominately on dualistic philosophical discourse and indoctrination of the masses;

we are left with manifesting separation of whole;

Here we are in a world of consciousness and unconsciousness;

What do we really know of the Union of both states of mind?

If anyone has managed to merge consciousness and unconsciousness into a fully unionized state of existence;

what type of being would they be?

I think that sure it is helpful to view reality as being two separate states of existence, but reality is necessarily both states at once.

So where do we begin to even grasp the notions of creating the union of consciousness and unconsciousness with out being in just one state at a time?

What would the union of consciousness and unconsciousness be like?

Are humans capable of creating such a union while in a conscious state of existence?

Reality is the self biased subjective perceptions of the dichotomous deterministic chaos where consciousness meets unconsciousness.

I do not know if there really are any facts that we die; after all humans are limited to their senses in dealing with perception of reality. So to say we die is a fact; is perhaps an indoctrination that humanity has taught humans in staying dependent upon their senses.

or To Fear physical and biological Death if you will; (religion)

Past that sure we physically die based upon other people's perceptual impulses of using their senses to subjectively understand reality, but in reality each one of us does not perceptually conceive or agree upon the same notions of so-called "death."

There for death isn't merely a fact at this point since our mind plays a roll in describing what facts are. Past that indoctrination works wonders in controlling the masses in to believing in so-called "Fact that we die."

"The truth of the matter is that consciousness poses the most baffling problems in the science of the mind." ~http://consc.net/papers/facing.html~

The beauty of such a matter is that each one of us will find out first hand what happens when the consciousness meets the unconsciousness.

Then perhaps we are on the same page; and the fact that we die is merely a notion of reality created by human's using their senses, the very senses that only glimpse at a fraction of the universe.

The mind and the ability to obtain the notions of an abstract is far more powerful than relying on only our senses.

It is a painstaking challenge to reach the point of non-duality. Where is the fine line that separates one thing from another? Find that line and you'll see that it never existed.

Shine your light on the dark to reveal the absence of the dark.

quote:

Originally posted by we_R_DNA Reality is the self biased subjective perceptions of the dichotomous deterministic chaos where consciousness meets unconsciousness. I do not know if there really are any facts that we die; after all humans are limited to their senses in dealing with perception of reality. So to say we die is a fact; is perhaps an indoctrination that humanity has taught humans in staying dependent upon their senses. or To Fear physical and biological Death if you will; (religion) Past that sure we physically die based upon other people's perceptual impulses of using their senses to subjectively understand reality, but in reality each one of us does not perceptually conceive or agree upon the same notions of so-called "death." There for death isn't merely a fact at this point since our mind plays a roll in describing what facts are. Past that indoctrination works wonders in controlling the masses in to believing in so-called "Fact that we die." "The truth of the matter is that consciousness poses the most baffling problems in the science of the mind." ~http://consc.net/papers/facing.html~ The beauty of such a matter is that each one of us will find out first hand what happens when the consciousness meets the unconsciousness. Then perhaps we are on the same page; and the fact that we die is merely a notion of reality created by human's using their senses, the very senses that only glimpse at a fraction of the universe. The mind and the ability to obtain the notions of an abstract is far more powerful than relying on only our senses.

HAHA! You're like me. Once you start on this subject it's hard to stop.

This aspect of Eastern thought always reminds me a little of the Lacanian distinction between the symbolic and the real.

I'm not even sure any of this stuff makes sense.

"The search for Reality is the most dangerous of all undertakings, for it destroys the world in which you live."

Throw out everything you know and see what's left.

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles I'm not even sure any of this stuff makes sense.

It doesn't. After reading DNA's post above I realized my first impression was correct. It's pointless mental masturbation based on the BS belief that reality is unreal and unknowable because our feeble minds can only perceive it through sense perception and conscious thought. What rubbish.

If we are to take it that reality and the "real" answers lie somewhere outside rational/conscious thought, then the words of the person uttering such a statement must be dismissed outright since they don't know WTF they are talking about anyway. The fact is that existence exists and it can be perceived accurately by the human mind. To believe otherwise you must perceive the entire world as an incomprehensible mess. You must argue that nature is a subjective illusion and that technological progress is a chance accident. The subject is a nonsensical load of BS, and every minute thinking about it is a huge waste of life..though of course if you believe whether you are alive or dead is a subjective matter of opinion open to debate and different biases, I guess this doesn't matter.

Dualism itself has always been a dead end, being resurrected by wishful thinking rather than by anything else.

I personally dislike the mystical underpinnings of nondualism, as there are less religious versions of this continuity hypothesis (such as Peirce's synechism).

quote:

quote: Originally posted by Capitalizt looks like a bunch of pointless mental masturbation to me. Does the "philosophy" have any real world implications or proposals for action? quote: Originally posted by Lomeli Does any "philosophy" have any real world implications or proposals for action?

Why, of course! There's isn't a single field of science (formerly known as natural philosophy, by the way) that isn't permeated by philosophical foundations. Most ideologies, movements, religions -- you name it -- have been influenced by philosophy in a way or another. Let's remind ourselves that you're a capitalist as opposed to what? Someone influenced by Marx? Or by Bakunin, perhaps?

The idea that science has to have a philosophical foundation before proceeding with its work is rubbish dreamed up by philosophers trying to make themselves look important.

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt It doesn't. After reading DNA's post above I realized my first impression was correct. It's pointless mental masturbation based on the BS belief that reality is unreal and unknowable because our feeble minds can only perceive it through sense perception and conscious thought.

Incorrect. Reality is the only thing that holds substance. Reality is all there is.

While I do think that false oppositions and dichotomies are created all too often by people, from what I've read in this thread Nondualism's conclusions don't seem to be able to exist without them. Example:

quote:

Originally posted by Meat187 Wait, don't Nondualism and Dualism form a... Dualism?! OMG, mindfuck!

quote:

Originally posted by Lira Why, of course! There's isn't a single field of science (formerly known as natural philosophy, by the way) that isn't permeated by philosophical foundations. Most ideologies, movements, religions -- you name it -- have been influenced by philosophy in a way or another. Let's remind ourselves that you're a capitalist as opposed to what? Someone influenced by Marx? Or by Bakunin, perhaps?

You know, I just live my life. I asked if anyone was interested, and that is all.

No use getting wrapped up in concepts/religions/sciences/philosophies. All it does is feed fuel to the fire, and the fire needs to burn out.

quote:

Originally posted by Lomeli Incorrect. Reality is the only thing that holds substance. Reality is all there is.

But we are incapable of knowing it because we are "limited" by our meager (and "subjective") faculties of perception..right?

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles The idea that science has to have a philosophical foundation before proceeding with its work is rubbish dreamed up by philosophers trying to make themselves look important.

Science does need a foundation of logic. Logic presupposes a the knowledge that A is A..that reality exists, has a specific nature, and we are capable of understanding it. Aristotle was the true founder of modern science in this respect. To hold one of the "reality exists outside our capacity of understanding" philosophies would make the whole idea of science meaningless.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.