quote:

Originally posted by Domesticated No, my post was a rhetorical question. If your metaphor was better you would be able to come up with an answer for the 1s and 0s. I'm not the one making assertions about non-dualism, so I'm not required to come up with the ideas.

I didn't answer precisely because it was a rhetorical question... No one is 'required' to come up with ideas, wtf? It would be a fruitless exercise to come up the application of a metaphor for a single case - that isn't the point of metaphors. Metaphors aren't proofs, they are creative ways of thinking about something in a new way - I would think you would understand that. Seriously, lose the snark.

quote:

Originally posted by Domesticated An observer is part of the act of observing, which is a completely different thing to there being 'no' observer. Observing would not exist without there being both an observer and the subject of his attention.

You have it backwards - observer and observed would not exist without there being observing.

quote:

Originally posted by Domesticated I agree on the first three counts. However, interesting as the concept may be, it's not 'truth'; it's a concept expressed in words and doesn't exist in the real world. Refuting this leads to the logic that reality doesn't exist the way humans perceive it, which may well be true but is essentially useless to us since we have no way of changing it. Also, if monism exists, shouldn't non-monism also exist? Why does non-dualism reduce everything to two elements, anyway? The world is a wonderfully varied place. I think what pkc was trying to say, in a very non-eloquent way, is that suppositions such as this have no practical use to us, besides intellectual stimulation (or, more crudely, masturbation). One may well suppose that the world consists of just one thing, but if we know that for sure, where does it lead us? How could our lives, our reality or our destinies be improved by this knowledge?

Well not everyone agrees that the 'world' is any more 'real' than concepts. There are different concepts of 'reality' that need to be clarified. One idea of reality is something that can be physically experienced. I will call this lowercase 'reality'. In the view of advaita, this is actually the great illusion, it is the projection, but not the film.

The other idea of reality is uppercase 'Reality' and contains the experiencing itself, the experiencer and the experienced. It was there before the universe, before god, before self, before any universal consciousness, but it is also simultaneously all of these things.

The world is certainly lowercase 'real'. If you hit me in the head with a hammer, it will hurt and possibly kill me, and I may lose consciousness. However, there is really no way to prove, for example, that anything 'real' is any more 'real' than a dream, and that science itself, the language needed to make the proof are part of the same elaborate illusion that the universe itself is part of, until one wakes up, so to speak - but wakes up into what? The set that contains all possible waking states and all possible dreams is uppercase 'Reality', and what I mean when I say 'truth'.

I cannot prove my view with physical evidence, because my view denies the reality of the physical. I cannot even prove my view with philosophical concepts, since words and ideas are chained to the physical body. However, even thinking about the origin of the physical universe for a second leads one to the cusp of this conclusion, that before anything physical was manifest, (and 'god' is merely a concept and wishful thinking of the physical body) there is some set that contains all possibilities from which time and space themselves unfold.

This to me is self evident, there can be no other conclusion - for instance, if science were to try to prove where the universe came from, one would have to know where the thing that made the universe came from, one would have to know where 'knowing' itself comes from! If religion were to try to prove that the universe came from god, one would have to know where god comes from...

So then it comes down to practicality, like you rightly point out. The trouble is, practicality comes with ethical and sociocultural attachments. 'Practical' is going to be completely relative to your beliefs and positions. So while we all know and appreciate the practical benefits of the scientific method, allow me to question it for its disadvantages and also propose some practical benefits of advaita:

Science appears to have benefited mankind. Take the example of the development of farming. Humans were able to settle down and feed themselves, extending their lives, to begin building civilizations, etc. However, the negative side of this was that with civilization and technology also comes increased ability to cause human suffering - out of this movement and advancement of science emerged things like nationalism, organized religion, industrial cultivation - which may eventually even lead to the destruction of the planet itself.

With all of our scientific advances, our instant communications, life-prolonging medicines, fast travel, sophisticated languages and governments - are we really better off than mankind of 10,000 years ago? Isn't it relative to what one believes as being 'better'? In other words, 10,000 years ago, mankind had its own pains and its own pleasures. There were broken heart, hungry babies, rivalries, and cold nights. These days we have our own pains and pleasures, internet egos inflamed, children who don't get ipods for christmas, fundamentalist religious hate, etc etc. As long as we give our attention to this lowercase 'reality' in the name of practicality, there will be this pleasure/pain action/reaction complex.

Now, advaita does away with the pleasure/pain complex by recognizing that pleasure/pain are relative to one's perspective and identification with a concept/body/consciousness, which one is not. (again, neti-neti, neither this, nor that)

This does have practical benefits (though advaita doesn't give them any more worth beyond what they are), namely:
- no sadness, hate, jealousy, etc (what is left is the ground, bliss)
- no fear! (what is left is the ground, love)

these things dissolve like clouds in the sky.

now those are practical benefits. basically superpowers. imagine what a world we would live in without fear, hate, jealousy, etc. in its most ideal application, there is no need for science, no need for anything at all. compared to this, your idea of 'practicality' is as important as the practicality of doing something in Mafia Wars. In advaita philosophy there is no pleasure, and no pain. and what remains is neither pleasure, nor pain, which are temporary - it is everlasting beingness, it is total freedom, total acquiescence, complete silence in a word - love.

love is realizing that you are the same as something else,
fear is maintaining that you are different.

Last edited by nefardec on Oct-22-2009 at 15:07