Does it matter or not?

[Laird]

I think what's important to note is that any so-called spiritual path that includes the deliberate victimization of people is really about the ego and not spirituality at all.

Yup, agreed.

Non-duality does not rely on dogma, it doesn't ask for your belief. Investigation of no-self is not about believing it, it is about asking yourself the question, "who am I?" If you want to cling to the body/mind, great.

Is it really great Sam? Or is it deluded?

Laird: Is it possible that you (Sam) will ever become enlightened?

samadhi: An individual isn't enlightened, it is the idea of you as an individual that you wake up from.

That you wake up from, Sam. "You". In other words, an individual.

Laird: As for "Non-dual teaching isn't about logic" - that's right, it's about senseless illogic, which credulous chaps such as yourself latch onto in the hope of one day transcending their everyday experience of reality.

samadhi: <Sigh> Why the need to condemn what you obviously don't understand?

I keep on telling you mate - there's nothing to understand because it just doesn't make sense, and it's sensible to condemn the senseless as such.

samadhi: If it is undeniable, then you could show me the self.

Laird: I don't need to "show" it to you because you experience it in every waking moment! You do - like every other English-speaking person - use the word "I", right? You do mean something by that, right?

samadhi: I experience a body/mind, I don't experience a self. This is what you don't understand.

Argh. You're impossible Sam. You don't experience a self? Then how in the hell did you manage to write that post from your perspective?

Laird: The "paradoxes" of your brand of enlightenment are better described as contradictions rendering the notion senseless. You talk of enlightenment as being beyond the ego, and yet beyond the ego the self does not exist. So an ego cannot be enlightened - you can't be enlightened - and it exists purely as an inapplicable notion floating out there in the ether.

samadhi: You need to go back to square one. You don't comprehend the meaning of "no self," work on that one before taking on enlightenment.

Laird: Bzzzzt! UNRESPONSIVE!

samadhi: I never said an ego can be enlightened, this is your idea. This is why I am saying you need to back up. You get everything mixed up because you don't understand the basics.

I never said that an ego can be enlightened either, but if an ego can't, then what can? What else is there?

The point is, when I show you the paradox, you simply reject it.

The point is that I find some paradoxes more meaningful than others.

What about the paradoxes you don't understand? Do they count?

Count as what?

Laird: I cling to a rock: that there is no rock to cling to. When I find it I discard my ignorance.

samadhi: I see what you're saying but it doesn't need a paradoxical context to express. There is nothing to cling to works just as well.

Laird: Actually, no, it doesn't convey the full meaning of that quote at all well. There's more to it than that.

samadhi: Then tell me what it is.

The subtext is pointing out that even if you take the position that no particular set of beliefs is objectively "correct", this in itself constitutes an objectively "correct" belief: in other words that there's no way to avoid having a fundamental belief system of some sort.

The second sentence can be interpreted in two ways. The first is that the discovery of this position that there are no objectively correct beliefs constitutes the end of ignorance. The second, and the one that I prefer, is that there is, after all, some objectively correct set of beliefs, and the happening upon this set of beliefs by whatever mechanism (divine revelation, recollection of an earlier spiritual state of ultimate knowledge or whatever) constitutes the end of ignorance.

With the Tao, paradox IS needed to express the idea of only when you do nothing, nothing is left undone. And you still don't understand why that is.

Enlighten me mate.

samadhi: You have always come back to the self as body/mind in this discussion. That has been your anchor.

Laird: The only time that I recall "coming back" to the self as body/mind is when I defined the self roughly for you several posts ago. Other than that I don't recall talking about the self in specific terms. Perhaps you would care to justify your claim.

samadhi: Well, you say the idea of no-self is nonsense. On what basis do you do that other than claiming that you have a self reflected in the body/mind?

The basis on which I say that the idea of no-self is nonsense is that it's in my current opinion impossible to be conscious without having a self. Yes, I believe that a self is reflected in the body/mind, but I have only explicitly said so once that I recall. I haven't "always come back" to that idea.

Laird: I believe that there is a perceiver: as to what exactly that perceiver turns out to be, I'm open to possibilities. Perhaps perceptions are part of it, perhaps not. Who really knows? Not me, and I certainly don't go so far as to "cling to" the idea that "the perception is the perceiver".

samadhi: Great. You have basically just said you don't know what the self is. Then why do you insist the idea of no-self is nonsense? Just by trusting your experience, the concept of self falls apart.

Erm, no, actually it doesn't. I'm conscious ergo I have a self. There's no way around that. I might not know exactly what that self is, but that it exists in some form is undeniable.

[divine focus]

Laird: I cling to a rock: that there is no rock to cling to. When I find it I discard my ignorance.

The second sentence can be interpreted in two ways. The first is that the discovery of this position that there are no objectively correct beliefs constitutes the end of ignorance. The second, and the one that I prefer, is that there is, after all, some objectively correct set of beliefs, and the happening upon this set of beliefs by whatever mechanism (divine revelation, recollection of an earlier spiritual state of ultimate knowledge or whatever) constitutes the end of ignorance.

It's not about arriving at a correct set of beliefs. Beliefs are in a sense substitutes for what is known beyond physical reality. When you know directly, you will perceive that knowing through whatever beliefs you currently hold to. The beliefs may shift to accomodate that knowing, and to accomodate increases in knowing, or they may not. It depends on the "level" of acceptance of the beliefs.

[samadhi]

Laird,

samadhi: I think what's important to note is that any so-called spiritual path that includes the deliberate victimization of people is really about the ego and not spirituality at all.

Laird: Yup, agreed.

Okay then. So do you see why characterizing enlightenment as license misses the mark?

samadhi: Non-duality does not rely on dogma, it doesn't ask for your belief. Investigation of no-self is not about believing it, it is about asking yourself the question, "who am I?" If you want to cling to the body/mind, great.

Laird: Is it really great Sam? Or is it deluded?

Delusion isn't a bad thing if you are getting what you want. It's just that eventually getting what you want becomes problematic.

Laird: Is it possible that you (Sam) will ever become enlightened?

samadhi: An individual isn't enlightened, it is the idea of you as an individual that you wake up from.

Laird: That you wake up from, Sam. "You". In other words, an individual.

No. When you become aware that you are dreaming, it isn't the character that becomes aware. The awareness may be expressed through that character but don't identify the awareness as the character.

Laird: As for "Non-dual teaching isn't about logic" - that's right, it's about senseless illogic, which credulous chaps such as yourself latch onto in the hope of one day transcending their everyday experience of reality.

samadhi: <Sigh> Why the need to condemn what you obviously don't understand?

Laird: I keep on telling you mate - there's nothing to understand because it just doesn't make sense, and it's sensible to condemn the senseless as such.

Anything you don't understand will be seen as senseless. Why not simply withhold judgment on what you don't understand? String theory to me is nonsense. It doesn't mean I go around condemning string theorists.

samadhi: If it is undeniable, then you could show me the self.

Laird: I don't need to "show" it to you because you experience it in every waking moment! You do - like every other English-speaking person - use the word "I", right? You do mean something by that, right?

samadhi: I experience a body/mind, I don't experience a self. This is what you don't understand.

Laird: Argh. You're impossible Sam. You don't experience a self? Then how in the hell did you manage to write that post from your perspective?

This is like asking how a dream character could talk about itself if it doesn't really exist. The answer is, very easily.

samadhi: I never said an ego can be enlightened, this is your idea. This is why I am saying you need to back up. You get everything mixed up because you don't understand the basics.

Laird: I never said that an ego can be enlightened either, but if an ego can't, then what can? What else is there?

You need to find that out for yourself. What else is there if there is no "I"? But you have to be interested. It isn't an academic question.

samadhi: The point is, when I show you the paradox, you simply reject it.

Laird: The point is that I find some paradoxes more meaningful than others.

Okay. But this is what I have been saying all along. You have to be interested. If you aren't interested in the paradox, how can you hope to discover its meaning?

samadhi: What about the paradoxes you don't understand? Do they count?

Laird: Count as what?

As a paradox (versus nonsense), what else?

Laird: I cling to a rock: that there is no rock to cling to. When I find it I discard my ignorance.

samadhi: I see what you're saying but it doesn't need a paradoxical context to express. There is nothing to cling to works just as well.

Laird: Actually, no, it doesn't convey the full meaning of that quote at all well. There's more to it than that.

samadhi: Then tell me what it is.

Laird: The subtext is pointing out that even if you take the position that no particular set of beliefs is objectively "correct", this in itself constitutes an objectively "correct" belief: in other words that there's no way to avoid having a fundamental belief system of some sort.

Actually, your paradox seems to introduce clinging as acceptable which is the problem you are having right now. You think you must have a fundamental belief system, a belief in the self, and you cling to that. What if you fundamental belief system wasn't about clinging but simply, "look and see"? Is there a self? Even if the answer for you is yes, you cannot say what others will see. Everyone gets to look for themselves.

The second sentence can be interpreted in two ways. The first is that the discovery of this position that there are no objectively correct beliefs constitutes the end of ignorance. The second, and the one that I prefer, is that there is, after all, some objectively correct set of beliefs, and the happening upon this set of beliefs by whatever mechanism (divine revelation, recollection of an earlier spiritual state of ultimate knowledge or whatever) constitutes the end of ignorance.

The end of ignorance is actually about not clinging, not about some set of objective beliefs. So don't cling to your rock, okay? ;)

samadhi: With the Tao, paradox IS needed to express the idea of only when you do nothing, nothing is left undone. And you still don't understand why that is.

Laird: Enlighten me mate.

Not doing is about the absence of a doer, not indolence.

samadhi: Well, you say the idea of no-self is nonsense. On what basis do you do that other than claiming that you have a self reflected in the body/mind?

Laird: The basis on which I say that the idea of no-self is nonsense is that it's in my current opinion impossible to be conscious without having a self. Yes, I believe that a self is reflected in the body/mind, but I have only explicitly said so once that I recall. I haven't "always come back" to that idea.

But you just came back to it! Why do you want tiptoe around it when it is in fact what you believe?!

Laird: I believe that there is a perceiver: as to what exactly that perceiver turns out to be, I'm open to possibilities. Perhaps perceptions are part of it, perhaps not. Who really knows? Not me, and I certainly don't go so far as to "cling to" the idea that "the perception is the perceiver".

samadhi: Great. You have basically just said you don't know what the self is. Then why do you insist the idea of no-self is nonsense? Just by trusting your experience, the concept of self falls apart.

Laird: Erm, no, actually it doesn't. I'm conscious ergo I have a self. There's no way around that. I might not know exactly what that self is, but that it exists in some form is undeniable.

Let's see, you don't know what it is but you insist you have it, I am getting that right? If you don't know what it is, how can you possibly know whether you have one or not?

What you do have is your IMAGE of a self, a concept you invest in as a self. Do you see that?

[Laird]

Sam, thanks for the prompt response. Now I've got something to do to keep my mind off bed. :-P

samadhi: I think what's important to note is that any so-called spiritual path that includes the deliberate victimization of people is really about the ego and not spirituality at all.

Laird: Yup, agreed.

samadhi: Okay then. So do you see why characterizing enlightenment as license misses the mark?

I don't know what you mean by "characterizing enlightenment as license". I presume that you're suggesting that it's what I'm doing, but I don't understand how it applies. "License"? Where have I said anything like that? License to do what?

samadhi: Non-duality does not rely on dogma, it doesn't ask for your belief. Investigation of no-self is not about believing it, it is about asking yourself the question, "who am I?" If you want to cling to the body/mind, great.

Laird: Is it really great Sam? Or is it deluded?

samadhi: Delusion isn't a bad thing if you are getting what you want. It's just that eventually getting what you want becomes problematic.

Sounds like a dream come true to me. Even better when everybody gets what they want! Heaven on Earth. :-)

Laird: Is it possible that you (Sam) will ever become enlightened?

samadhi: An individual isn't enlightened, it is the idea of you as an individual that you wake up from.

Laird: That you wake up from, Sam. "You". In other words, an individual.

samadhi: No. When you become aware that you are dreaming, it isn't the character that becomes aware. The awareness may be expressed through that character but don't identify the awareness as the character.

Character, individual - what's the difference? So you identify the awareness as or not as the character - again, what's the difference? In the end, there is a character/individual and that character/individual is aware, and is the only possible subject of enlightenment.

Laird: As for "Non-dual teaching isn't about logic" - that's right, it's about senseless illogic, which credulous chaps such as yourself latch onto in the hope of one day transcending their everyday experience of reality.

samadhi: <Sigh> Why the need to condemn what you obviously don't understand?

Laird: I keep on telling you mate - there's nothing to understand because it just doesn't make sense, and it's sensible to condemn the senseless as such.

samadhi: Anything you don't understand will be seen as senseless. Why not simply withhold judgment on what you don't understand? String theory to me is nonsense. It doesn't mean I go around condemning string theorists.

The way that I "don't understand" your teachings is the same way in which, as I explained to mikiel in the "Forget about enlightenment" thread, I "don't understand" that the liquid water in my cup could be other than wet. In other words, I understand perfectly well that there is no sense to them.

samadhi: If it is undeniable, then you could show me the self.

Laird: I don't need to "show" it to you because you experience it in every waking moment! You do - like every other English-speaking person - use the word "I", right? You do mean something by that, right?

samadhi: I experience a body/mind, I don't experience a self. This is what you don't understand.

Laird: Argh. You're impossible Sam. You don't experience a self? Then how in the hell did you manage to write that post from your perspective?

samadhi: This is like asking how a dream character could talk about itself if it doesn't really exist. The answer is, very easily.

Are you talking about yourself as the dream character, or one of the characters that you encounter in a dream. Assuming that you mean the former, even as a dream character, you are still conscious - in other words, you still have a self!

samadhi: I never said an ego can be enlightened, this is your idea. This is why I am saying you need to back up. You get everything mixed up because you don't understand the basics.

Laird: I never said that an ego can be enlightened either, but if an ego can't, then what can? What else is there?

samadhi: You need to find that out for yourself. What else is there if there is no "I"? But you have to be interested. It isn't an academic question.

That's all very evasive Sam. A more honest answer would have been "Hmm, you know what, there really isn't anything else, is there?"

Frankly, I'm not interested, because the premise (that the self does not exist) is patently irrational. If you can't answer it as an academic question then I have to call "sham" on you.

samadhi: The point is, when I show you the paradox, you simply reject it.

Laird: The point is that I find some paradoxes more meaningful than others.

samadhi: Okay. But this is what I have been saying all along. You have to be interested. If you aren't interested in the paradox, how can you hope to discover its meaning?

By having you explain it to me clearly.

samadhi: What about the paradoxes you don't understand? Do they count?

Laird: Count as what?

samadhi: As a paradox (versus nonsense), what else?

I can recognise them as paradoxes, but I might judge that they are more contradictory and meaningless than truthful.

Actually, your paradox seems to introduce clinging as acceptable which is the problem you are having right now. You think you must have a fundamental belief system, a belief in the self, and you cling to that. What if you fundamental belief system wasn't about clinging but simply, "look and see"? Is there a self? Even if the answer for you is yes, you cannot say what others will see. Everyone gets to look for themselves.

Ah, so I have a problem do I? I thought that all spiritual paths were fine in your eyes, but now it seems that mine is not so fine after all.

As for whether anyone else has a self, I can only speculate of course, but given the remarkable similarities in all other respects between me and other human beings I find it hard to imagine that it would be any different for any of you guys in respect of having a self.

The end of ignorance is actually about not clinging, not about some set of objective beliefs. So don't cling to your rock, okay? ;)

Yes master.

samadhi: With the Tao, paradox IS needed to express the idea of only when you do nothing, nothing is left undone. And you still don't understand why that is.

Laird: Enlighten me mate.

samadhi: Not doing is about the absence of a doer, not indolence.

Yeah, um, but how does the absence of a doer leave nothing undone?

samadhi: Well, you say the idea of no-self is nonsense. On what basis do you do that other than claiming that you have a self reflected in the body/mind?

Laird: The basis on which I say that the idea of no-self is nonsense is that it's in my current opinion impossible to be conscious without having a self. Yes, I believe that a self is reflected in the body/mind, but I have only explicitly said so once that I recall. I haven't "always come back" to that idea.

samadhi: But you just came back to it! Why do you want tiptoe around it when it is in fact what you believe?!

Well it's not entirely what I believe. As I wrote in an earlier post, I'm open to the possibility of a soul, which would be even more personal than a body/mind, and I'm open to the possibility of a spiritually layered self where there are other aspects to the self that go beyond mere body/mind.

Anyway, it's not about tiptoeing around it, it's about me objecting to you claiming that I "keep coming back to" the idea of self as body/mind when I've actually barely mentioned it.

Laird: I believe that there is a perceiver: as to what exactly that perceiver turns out to be, I'm open to possibilities. Perhaps perceptions are part of it, perhaps not. Who really knows? Not me, and I certainly don't go so far as to "cling to" the idea that "the perception is the perceiver".

samadhi: Great. You have basically just said you don't know what the self is. Then why do you insist the idea of no-self is nonsense? Just by trusting your experience, the concept of self falls apart.

Laird: Erm, no, actually it doesn't. I'm conscious ergo I have a self. There's no way around that. I might not know exactly what that self is, but that it exists in some form is undeniable.

samadhi: Let's see, you don't know what it is but you insist you have it, I am getting that right? If you don't know what it is, how can you possibly know whether you have one or not?

I don't know how my eye works but I know that I can see ergo I have a seeing organ (an eye). Just like I don't entirely know what my self is but I am self-aware, ergo I have a self.

What you do have is your IMAGE of a self, a concept you invest in as a self. Do you see that?

Um, no dude. It's more than just an image. It is an image too, but it's more than just an image.

[Ataraxia]

samadhi: If it is undeniable, then you could show me the self.

Laird: I don't need to "show" it to you because you experience it in every waking moment! You do - like every other English-speaking person - use the word "I", right? You do mean something by that, right?

samadhi: I experience a body/mind, I don't experience a self. This is what you don't understand.

Laird: Argh. You're impossible Sam. You don't experience a self? Then how in the hell did you manage to write that post from your perspective?

samadhi: This is like asking how a dream character could talk about itself if it doesn't really exist. The answer is, very easily.

Laird:Are you talking about yourself as the dream character, or one of the characters that you encounter in a dream. Assuming that you mean the former, even as a dream character, you are still conscious - in other words, you still have a self!

When I'm sleep dreaming there never seems to be a true sense of a self.There's a feeling like "I'm' involved somehow in whats going on in the dream,but not really.I can't remember ever seeing 'my' body in the dream,or ever felt like 'I' really got injured or anything but it feels like my mind is still thinking within the dream.It's more like those doco-drama's like the Blair Witch project,the dreamer is the camera-only even stranger stuff happens in dreams.

The only ever time I've experienced a similar sense as a being-in-the-world to the dream, was when on acid.

Maybe thats the type of 'feeling' Sam is pointing to?

[Laird]

When I'm sleep dreaming there never seems to be a true sense of a self.

Yes, I know what you mean - it's the same for me. Nevertheless there's a big difference between not having a sense of self and not having an actual self. Without the actual self, there would be no you there to have the dream.

The only ever time I've experienced a similar sense as a being-in-the-world to the dream, was when on acid.

It always befuddles me to hear other people talk of cool experiences on acid. The drug (I only tried it once) completely fucked me over in the worst possible sense. I wouldn't recommend it to my worst enemies. Frankly it's a tool of the Devil as far as I'm concerned.

Maybe thats the type of 'feeling' Sam is pointing to?

Perhaps. It's hard to know. Sam never says much concrete or coherent on the matter.

[Sapius]

Samadhi;

What you do have is your IMAGE of a self, a concept you invest in as a self. Do you see that?

A “concept” of a self is not necessary for a Self to be; try however hard one may. Consciousness is an individualistic phenomenon, and necessarily relies on something else. Hence, there cannot be ”awareness”, or “consciousness”, or a “SELF”, independent or absolute in any real sense of the word. If consciousness or self IS, then something other than that necessarily IS. And BOTH are necessarily dependant on each other.

One can personally (a particular Self that is) value one of those things over the other, as in spiritual against the material, philosophy/science, mind/body, or vice versa, but cannot really get rid of either.

There is no argument really; because it does not really matter how a realization sets in, what matters is how a Self reacts through an acquired realization, and how rationally positive his/her actions are then on.

[Sapius]

Ataraxia

The only ever time I've experienced a similar sense as a being-in-the-world to the dream, was when on acid.

Maybe thats the type of 'feeling' Sam is pointing to?

No; I can most assuredly say he is not. I can perfectly understand him even if he thinks I don't, and I don't really argue against it.

[Laird]

I can perfectly understand [Sam] even if he thinks I don't, and I don't really argue against it.

Ah! An interpreter! Please fill us in on exactly what Sam's on about then Sap, 'cos I'm not getting any sense out of it.

[Sapius]

I can perfectly understand [Sam] even if he thinks I don't, and I don't really argue against it.

Ah! An interpreter! Please fill us in on exactly what Sam's on about then Sap, 'cos I'm not getting any sense out of it.

I already did...

One can personally (a particular Self that is) value one of those things over the other, as in spiritual against the material, philosophy/science, mind/body, or vice versa, but cannot really get rid of either.

Accepting or refusing to accept any premises or concept, should actually be irrelevant to Samadhi, and most probably that is how he actually operates, but for the sake of his egotistical need, he finds it compelling to share his personal realizations, so others may FEEL what he does, for he finds it GOOD himself.

There is no other inherent motivation other than that, but of Course, HE may prefer to refute it. However, if it results in a high degree of selflessness, and his actions conform to it, then nothing like it.

[samadhi]

Laird,

samadhi: I think what's important to note is that any so-called spiritual path that includes the deliberate victimization of people is really about the ego and not spirituality at all.

Laird: Yup, agreed.

samadhi: Okay then. So do you see why characterizing enlightenment as license misses the mark?

Laird: I don't know what you mean by "characterizing enlightenment as license". I presume that you're suggesting that it's what I'm doing, but I don't understand how it applies. "License"? Where have I said anything like that? License to do what?

I was referring to your reaction when I said all paths are fine with me. But we don't have to go back there.

samadhi: Non-duality does not rely on dogma, it doesn't ask for your belief. Investigation of no-self is not about believing it, it is about asking yourself the question, "who am I?" If you want to cling to the body/mind, great.

Laird: Is it really great Sam? Or is it deluded?

samadhi: Delusion isn't a bad thing if you are getting what you want. It's just that eventually getting what you want becomes problematic.

Laird: Sounds like a dream come true to me. Even better when everybody gets what they want! Heaven on Earth. :-)

Heaven on earth isn't getting what you want, it is wanting what you get.

Laird: Is it possible that you (Sam) will ever become enlightened?

samadhi: An individual isn't enlightened, it is the idea of you as an individual that you wake up from.

Laird: That you wake up from, Sam. "You". In other words, an individual.

samadhi: No. When you become aware that you are dreaming, it isn't the character that becomes aware. The awareness may be expressed through that character but don't identify the awareness as the character.

Laird: Character, individual - what's the difference? So you identify the awareness as or not as the character - again, what's the difference? In the end, there is a character/individual and that character/individual is aware, and is the only possible subject of enlightenment.

When you dream, a character appears that you identify with as you. When you become aware of your dreaming, the character doesn't disappear, only its identity with you.

samadhi: Anything you don't understand will be seen as senseless. Why not simply withhold judgment on what you don't understand? String theory to me is nonsense. It doesn't mean I go around condemning string theorists.

Laird: The way that I "don't understand" your teachings is the same way in which, as I explained to mikiel in the "Forget about enlightenment" thread, I "don't understand" that the liquid water in my cup could be other than wet. In other words, I understand perfectly well that there is no sense to them.

You are equating the self with the body/mind in the way that you equate wetness with liquid. Yet the two are not inseparable. If you were to lose your fingertip, would you have lost a piece of you or of your finger?

samadhi: I experience a body/mind, I don't experience a self. This is what you don't understand.

Laird: Argh. You're impossible Sam. You don't experience a self? Then how in the hell did you manage to write that post from your perspective?

samadhi: This is like asking how a dream character could talk about itself if it doesn't really exist. The answer is, very easily.

Laird: Are you talking about yourself as the dream character, or one of the characters that you encounter in a dream. Assuming that you mean the former, even as a dream character, you are still conscious - in other words, you still have a self!

In a dream, there is a character that you assume an identity with. When you awaken, you realize there is no such character. It doesn't mean that you as character cannot function within that identity. Being conscious of the character does not require identifying yourself AS the character. In the same way, identification with the body/mind is not required to function as a body/mind.

samadhi: I never said an ego can be enlightened, this is your idea. This is why I am saying you need to back up. You get everything mixed up because you don't understand the basics.

Laird: I never said that an ego can be enlightened either, but if an ego can't, then what can? What else is there?

samadhi: You need to find that out for yourself. What else is there if there is no "I"? But you have to be interested. It isn't an academic question.

Laird: That's all very evasive Sam. A more honest answer would have been "Hmm, you know what, there really isn't anything else, is there?"

Again, it's fine if you have no interest in an investigation of who or what you really are. Just don't take your lack of interest as the end of all possible inquiry.

Frankly, I'm not interested, because the premise (that the self does not exist) is patently irrational. If you can't answer it as an academic question then I have to call "sham" on you.

Lol, clever. No, I'm afraid there is no academic answer to the question of who you are. Putting a label on it leaves you exactly where you are now. No concept is a substitute for realization. If I were to tell you how wonderful it is to be wealthy, could you use my concepts to meet all your needs?

samadhi: The point is, when I show you the paradox, you simply reject it.

Laird: The point is that I find some paradoxes more meaningful than others.

samadhi: Okay. But this is what I have been saying all along. You have to be interested. If you aren't interested in the paradox, how can you hope to discover its meaning?

Laird: By having you explain it to me clearly.

What part didn't you understand?

samadhi: What about the paradoxes you don't understand? Do they count?

Laird: Count as what?

samadhi: As a paradox (versus nonsense), what else?

Laird: I can recognise them as paradoxes, but I might judge that they are more contradictory and meaningless than truthful.

That's why they need to be realized. There is no logic to a paradox other than your own realization.

samadhi: Actually, your paradox seems to introduce clinging as acceptable which is the problem you are having right now. You think you must have a fundamental belief system, a belief in the self, and you cling to that. What if you fundamental belief system wasn't about clinging but simply, "look and see"? Is there a self? Even if the answer for you is yes, you cannot say what others will see. Everyone gets to look for themselves.

Laird: Ah, so I have a problem do I? I thought that all spiritual paths were fine in your eyes, but now it seems that mine is not so fine after all.

The problem is with trying to understand non-duality in terms of a body/mind identity that you cling to. You are banging your head against a wall. Logic and duality cannot take you to non-duality. And it may not be a problem depending on what you want. Only you can say.

As for whether anyone else has a self, I can only speculate of course, but given the remarkable similarities in all other respects between me and other human beings I find it hard to imagine that it would be any different for any of you guys in respect of having a self.

Mikiel has told you that it is indeed different. You simply want to deny his experience because it isn't yours and you can't understand it.

samadhi: The end of ignorance is actually about not clinging, not about some set of objective beliefs. So don't cling to your rock, okay? ;)

Laird: Yes master.

Lol.

samadhi: With the Tao, paradox IS needed to express the idea of only when you do nothing, nothing is left undone. And you still don't understand why that is.

Laird: Enlighten me mate.

samadhi: Not doing is about the absence of a doer, not indolence.

Laird: Yeah, um, but how does the absence of a doer leave nothing undone?

When there is no doer, how can anything be left undone? Or when there is no doer, all doing flows from the source and thus anything that needs doing is invariably done.

samadhi: Well, you say the idea of no-self is nonsense. On what basis do you do that other than claiming that you have a self reflected in the body/mind?

Laird: The basis on which I say that the idea of no-self is nonsense is that it's in my current opinion impossible to be conscious without having a self. Yes, I believe that a self is reflected in the body/mind, but I have only explicitly said so once that I recall. I haven't "always come back" to that idea.

samadhi: But you just came back to it! Why do you want tiptoe around it when it is in fact what you believe?!

Laird: Well it's not entirely what I believe. As I wrote in an earlier post, I'm open to the possibility of a soul, which would be even more personal than a body/mind, and I'm open to the possibility of a spiritually layered self where there are other aspects to the self that go beyond mere body/mind.

I'm sure there are many layers to the self beyond the body/mind. It's not so hard to imagine it as infinite. Whatever guise happens to fascinate you, you get to play with as long as you want.

Anyway, it's not about tiptoeing around it, it's about me objecting to you claiming that I "keep coming back to" the idea of self as body/mind when I've actually barely mentioned it.

The body/mind is what you perceive and thus identify as you. All guises work the same way, whatever their qualities may be.

Laird: Erm, no, actually it doesn't. I'm conscious ergo I have a self. There's no way around that. I might not know exactly what that self is, but that it exists in some form is undeniable.

samadhi: Let's see, you don't know what it is but you insist you have it, I am getting that right? If you don't know what it is, how can you possibly know whether you have one or not?

Laird: I don't know how my eye works but I know that I can see ergo I have a seeing organ (an eye). Just like I don't entirely know what my self is but I am self-aware, ergo I have a self.

You are aware that you are, but what you are is another question. You don't require a self to be but you need a self to be SOMETHING.

samadhi: What you do have is your IMAGE of a self, a concept you invest in as a self. Do you see that?

Laird: Um, no dude. It's more than just an image. It is an image too, but it's more than just an image.

Well, I'm waiting to hear what that might be. You keep telling me you have a self but when I ask what that self is, you never have an answer.

[samadhi]

Sapius,

samadhi: What you do have is your IMAGE of a self, a concept you invest in as a self. Do you see that?

Sapius: A "concept" of a self is not necessary for a Self to be; try however hard one may.

Isn't that what I've been saying? A concept isn't necessary but it is what everyone invests in.

Consciousness is an individualistic phenomenon, and necessarily relies on something else. Hence, there cannot be "awareness", or "consciousness", or a "SELF", independent or absolute in any real sense of the word.

Not within duality of course.

If consciousness or self IS, then something other than that necessarily IS. And BOTH are necessarily dependant on each other.

Again, within duality.

One can personally (a particular Self that is) value one of those things over the other, as in spiritual against the material, philosophy/science, mind/body, or vice versa, but cannot really get rid of either.

I'm not sure you're understanding where I'm coming from. There is no need to get rid of anything nor am I suggesting substituting one belief for another.

There is no argument really; because it does not really matter how a realization sets in, what matters is how a Self reacts through an acquired realization, and how rationally positive his/her actions are then on.

Of course. But the discussion has been whether there is such a thing as realization, not what happens after.

Ataraxia: Maybe thats the type of 'feeling' Sam is pointing to?

Sapius: No; I can most assuredly say he is not. I can perfectly understand him even if he thinks I don't, and I don't really argue against it.

I was referring to dreaming in the above instance. Everyone dreams so it shouldn't be hard to understand.

Accepting or refusing to accept any premises or concept, should actually be irrelevant to Samadhi, and most probably that is how he actually operates, but for the sake of his egotistical need, he finds it compelling to share his personal realizations, so others may FEEL what he does, for he finds it GOOD himself.

I have already said I enjoy such discussions and participate for my own benefit, whatever else anyone gets from them.

There is no other inherent motivation other than that, but of Course, HE may prefer to refute it. However, if it results in a high degree of selflessness, and his actions conform to it, then nothing like it.

I told you my motivation, you can accept it or not.

[Sapius]

Samadhi;

Not within duality of course.

IMHO, there can’t be anything without, but hey! we aren’t trying to convince each other… isn’t it? So good luck to us all :)

[samadhi]

We were in agreement, weren't we?

[Sapius]

We were in agreement, weren't we?

Does that really bother you, Sam (if I may)? I don’t think it should.
Yes, we are much in agreement, but for a tiny issue…

Not within duality of course.

What is the alternative then?

[samadhi]

samadhi: We were in agreement, weren't we?

Sapius: Does that really bother you, Sam (if I may)? I don’t think it should.

Of course it doesn't. But I was wondering why you referred to my convincing you when we were in agreement.

Sapius: Consciousness is an individualistic phenomenon, and necessarily relies on something else. Hence, there cannot be "awareness", or "consciousness", or a "SELF", independent or absolute in any real sense of the word.

samadhi: Not within duality of course.

Sapius: What is the alternative then?

Non-dual teaching renders your point somewhat moot, does it not? Within duality, consciousness is always associated with its body/mind component and to speak of it as independent of that would appear quite fantastic. From a non-dual perspective however, there is no need, nor room for that matter, to posit one thing as dependent on another. This is not to say that one perspective is more "true" than the other. And if you prefer one, there is no need to convince you of the other. But before you pronounce dependence as absolute, you should acknowledge your frame of reference.

[Sapius]

Samadhi;

Non-dual teaching renders your point somewhat moot, does it not? Within duality, consciousness is always associated with its body/mind component and to speak of it as independent of that would appear quite fantastic. From a non-dual perspective however, there is no need, nor room for that matter, to posit one thing as dependent on another. This is not to say that one perspective is more "true" than the other. And if you prefer one, there is no need to convince you of the other. But before you pronounce dependence as absolute, you should acknowledge your frame of reference.

Trust me, I know exactly what you mean, but actually I don't really know much about traditional non-dualistic teachings except what I hear so to speak, but from a very young age I have simply followed what can be generally described as a sincere search to know ones self and all else; so let me put it this way.... First there was a mountain, and then there was no mountain, and then there was indeed a mountain. I think this should make more sense to you.

I essentially operate from that perspective and cannot go back even if I tried my level best. As I stand today, I see "non-dualism" as a mental construct that most, if not all, are consciously or sub-consciously attached to, whereas what you call "dualism", does not necessarily need a mental construct to begin with once realized, hence a mountain is indeed a mountain irrelevant of anyone conceiving or defining it so; so where is the “attachment” to “duality” when one KNOWS a mountain is INDEED a mountain? End of story! And goes about simply operating in that light, without thence ever giving even “duality” a second thought.

I really have nothing against ‘non-dualistic’ teachings, nor a mountain as such; I never really had that in me to begin with. There is nothing for me to actually agree or disagree upon, but simply express my opinions; one is free to interpret what I say as one wishes.

[samadhi]

Trust me, I know exactly what you mean, but actually I don't really know much about traditional non-dualistic teachings except what I hear so to speak, but from a very young age I have simply followed what can be generally described as a sincere search to know ones self and all else; so let me put it this way.... First there was a mountain, and then there was no mountain, and then there was indeed a mountain. I think this should make more sense to you.

Sure, either way can work depending on what you want.

I essentially operate from that perspective and cannot go back even if I tried my level best. As I stand today, I see "non-dualism" as a mental construct that most, if not all, are consciously or sub-consciously attached to ...

You can come by it experientially as well even without a realization. The dream state demonstrates perfectly how dualism and non-dualism intertwine.

... whereas what you call "dualism", does not necessarily need a mental construct to begin with once realized, hence a mountain is indeed a mountain irrelevant of anyone conceiving or defining it so; so where is the "attachment" to "duality" when one KNOWS a mountain is INDEED a mountain? End of story!

Well, attachment is a bit harsh. Like I said, there is nothing more or less true about either perspective. If you enjoy mountain-climbing, no one is saying you have to give it up. All I am saying is that mountain-climbing is not the only game in town.

And goes about simply operating in that light, without thence ever giving even “duality” a second thought.

Sure, if you enjoy it, why would you give it a second thought?

I really have nothing against 'non-dualistic' teachings, nor a mountain as such; I never really had that in me to begin with. There is nothing for me to actually agree or disagree upon, but simply express my opinions; one is free to interpret what I say as one wishes.

Which is all I'm saying. We aren't really disagreeing but simply playing around with emphasis.

[Unidian]

When you dream, a character appears that you identify with as you. When you become aware of your dreaming, the character doesn't disappear, only its identity with you.

Yes, this is a really important point that clears up a lot of misconceptions about "ego." Worth thinking about, especially when there are people around claiming that "ego disappears completely" and such.

[Sapius]

.
Samadhi,

Please keep in mind, that I will be speaking according to what I think is your level of perspective, but eventually if you don’t understand my perspective, I cannot really help with that.

Sap: I really have nothing against 'non-dualistic' teachings, nor a mountain as such; I never really had that in me to begin with. There is nothing for me to actually agree or disagree upon, but simply express my opinions; one is free to interpret what I say as one wishes.

Sam: Which is all I'm saying. We aren't really disagreeing but simply playing around with emphasis.

May be, but it is NOT a game to me. MY “emphasis” are the soul of my being; a reflection of who I am, and I am that I am in any given moment; nothing more, nothing less.

Sap: “First there was a mountain, and then there was no mountain, and then there was indeed a mountain.”

Sam: Sure, either way can work depending on what you want.

What other way? That quote simply indicates the coming of a full circle, and realizing that absolutely NOTHING is a DREAM Ultimately. Including what we think or define as a DREAM, or that which we consider “illusory” in nature. But that does not tell me that there is some “non-duality” involved in any way, for I never loose the “I” which necessarily involves consciousness, which entirely depends on differentiation, hence the “dualistic” nature of the “I” remains, but only in relation to a single thing, and the degree of ‘awareness’ fluctuates depending on the nature of a thing, and ANY kind of AWARENESS cannot be unless there is something other than that to be AWARE OF.

You can come by it experientially as well even without a realization. The dream state demonstrates perfectly how dualism and non-dualism intertwine.

Aren’t ‘realizations’ but an inherent part of ‘experiences’? I do not differentiate between the physical and non-physical in an inherent sense, but in a necessarily needed differentiation sense, if consciousness is to mean anything at all.

And which dream state are you talking about? The waking one or the sleeping one? In either, I do not loose my identity, the “I”, be it a lucid/non-lucid sleeping dream, or a more lucid waking dream, and in either case, a necessarily required differentiation of what is dreaming, and what is being dreamed, is necessarily REQUIRED all the time. Otherwise neither could be. So where does non-duality enter, and in what sense? My realizations, or anything for that matter, including Totality, cannot be sustained unless there is a yin and yang in operation, and UNDERSTANDING THAT itself is sustained by the same PROCESS, and it would be ME, in and off duality, who places high importance on a egotistically created word, Non-Duality, Totality, God, Tao, etc, etc. Whereas all of those thoughts necessarily require and are alive in and off a yin/yang type process, and at no time form a unity or merge in any other way but through egotistical desires of finding the ULTIMATE oneness, which I’m not against AT ALL, but ONENESS is totally a result of ones desires which in any case remains in and off duality, irrelevant of ones THOUGHT processes, but there is no ONE THING ultimately, NOT even TOTALITY itself. Duality does not require a Non-duality, but Non-duality does, for Duality itself is Self-sustainable and relies on its own inherent PROCESS, Yin AND Yang, in the traditional terminology.

The intertwining of “dualism” and “non-dualism” which YOU seemingly experience in a “dream”, requires an alive process of yin and yang to begin with, otherwise there cannot be an “I” for a start, and I call THAT a dualistic nature of any ONE individualistic thing, inter-aware of any other thing through a process and connectivity of causal conditions.

Sap: And goes about simply operating in that light, without thence ever giving even “duality” a second thought.

Sam: Sure, if you enjoy it, why would you give it a second thought?

:D Hahahaa… You are still interpreting it according your experiences, my friend, which I don’t mind at all, but it no longer remains a matter of “enjoyment”; ever-opposite emotions are so intense that they cancel each other out in an inherent sense; what remains is simply a dualistically aware consciousness, that carries water and chops wood, ESSENTIALLY speaking.

It was you last sentence that prompted me to explain further, otherwise I would have left it at that, and hence I responded to that first.

[Sapius]

When you dream, a character appears that you identify with as you. When you become aware of your dreaming, the character doesn't disappear, only its identity with you.

Yes, this is a really important point that clears up a lot of misconceptions about "ego." Worth thinking about, especially when there are people around claiming that "ego disappears completely" and such.

"Ego disappears completely"? Absolutely impossible; otherwise totality would too, and what are the possibilities of that?!

However, it is quite possible to achieve such a state of mind, but only through delusions of grandeur in my opinion.

And BTW, an identity remains too, (the “I”), and that identity necessarily requires certain individualistically held and causally sustained memory capsule, otherwise none of it would make any coherent or logical sense; and two "I's" can never ever be the same, and that is one of the infinite uniqueness that only Existence could offer.

So it is illogical to assume that there is some ONE "consciousness" or “awareness” working in all; each one is as unique as it could possibly be.

Our False-Ego, lures us into “worshipping” a mere process actually, through desires that also have a positive side, and are necessary for Existence to work.

I rest my case.

[divine focus]

But that does not tell me that there is some “non-duality” involved in any way, for I never loose the “I” which necessarily involves consciousness, which entirely depends on differentiation, hence the “dualistic” nature of the “I” remains, but only in relation to a single thing, and the degree of ‘awareness’ fluctuates depending on the nature of a thing, and ANY kind of AWARENESS cannot be unless there is something other than that to be AWARE OF.

To me, the duality is really one of being and knowing. The knowing knows itself as I, and the being simply is. The I is aware of being, but the being is not other than the I. Everything that is, through being, is essentially the same. The I may be aware from different perspectives, but if it is at all, it must be that which is. There is only one thing that is; it is so obvious and apparent to me, and so fundamental, I cannot speak about it or describe it in any other way. This has been before the mountain was no mountain, in my development, though I would not have dared speak about it back then.

[brokenhead]

Trust me, I know exactly what you mean, but actually I don't really know much about traditional non-dualistic teachings except what I hear so to speak, but from a very young age I have simply followed what can be generally described as a sincere search to know ones self and all else; so let me put it this way.... First there was a mountain, and then there was no mountain, and then there was indeed a mountain. I think this should make more sense to you.

This rings so true it makes me want to laugh.

[samadhi]

Sapius,

Please keep in mind, that I will be speaking according to what I think is your level of perspective, but eventually if you don’t understand my perspective, I cannot really help with that.

Okay.

Sap: I really have nothing against 'non-dualistic' teachings, nor a mountain as such; I never really had that in me to begin with. There is nothing for me to actually agree or disagree upon, but simply express my opinions; one is free to interpret what I say as one wishes.

Sam: Which is all I'm saying. We aren't really disagreeing but simply playing around with emphasis.

Sap: May be, but it is NOT a game to me. MY "emphasis" are the soul of my being; a reflection of who I am, and I am that I am in any given moment; nothing more, nothing less.

Okay.

Sap: "First there was a mountain, and then there was no mountain, and then there was indeed a mountain."

Sam: Sure, either way can work depending on what you want.

What other way? That quote simply indicates the coming of a full circle, and realizing that absolutely NOTHING is a DREAM ultimately.

I am not trying to dismiss anything. If you believe in the mountain, great. If you see there is no mountain, great. I am just saying one is not more true than the other. What works for you is what you will go with.

Including what we think or define as a DREAM, or that which we consider "illusory" in nature. But that does not tell me that there is some “non-duality” involved in any way, for I never lose the "I" which necessarily involves consciousness, which entirely depends on differentiation, hence the "dualistic" nature of the "I" remains, but only in relation to a single thing, and the degree of 'awareness' fluctuates depending on the nature of a thing, and ANY kind of AWARENESS cannot be unless there is something other than that to be AWARE OF.

Non-duality is not something you can be conscious of. Consciousness requires differentiation as you have already pointed out.

sam: You can come by it experientially as well even without a realization. The dream state demonstrates perfectly how dualism and non-dualism intertwine.

Sap: Aren't 'realizations' but an inherent part of 'experiences'? I do not differentiate between the physical and non-physical in an inherent sense, but in a necessarily needed differentiation sense, if consciousness is to mean anything at all.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Realization as I refer to it just means knowing what you are.

And which dream state are you talking about? The waking one or the sleeping one? In either, I do not loose my identity, the "I", be it a lucid/non-lucid sleeping dream, or a more lucid waking dream, and in either case, a necessarily required differentiation of what is dreaming, and what is being dreamed, is necessarily REQUIRED all the time. Otherwise neither could be.

I was referring to dreams we have while sleeping. And of course there is differentiation in a dream. That is the duality you are experiencing while you dream.

So where does non-duality enter, and in what sense?

Non-duality of the dream state refers to the consciousness that creates and sustains it. It is all consciousness, all "you".

My realizations, or anything for that matter, including Totality, cannot be sustained unless there is a yin and yang in operation, and UNDERSTANDING THAT itself is sustained by the same PROCESS, and it would be ME, in and off duality, who places high importance on a egotistically created word, Non-Duality, Totality, God, Tao, etc, etc.

Again, you are referring to a conscious state.

Whereas all of those thoughts necessarily require and are alive in and off a yin/yang type process, and at no time form a unity or merge in any other way but through egotistical desires of finding the ULTIMATE oneness, which I’m not against AT ALL, but ONENESS is totally a result of ones desires which in any case remains in and off duality, irrelevant of ones THOUGHT processes, but there is no ONE THING ultimately, NOT even TOTALITY itself.

You seem to be reiterating the duality of the conscious state. Yes, we are in agreement that the conscious state is dualistic.

Duality does not require a Non-duality, but Non-duality does, for Duality itself is Self-sustainable and relies on its own inherent PROCESS, Yin AND Yang, in the traditional terminology.

Whether it requires it or not is moot. In dreaming you can see they both exist, one within the other.

The intertwining of "dualism" and "non-dualism" which YOU seemingly experience in a "dream", requires an alive process of yin and yang to begin with, otherwise there cannot be an "I" for a start, and I call THAT a dualistic nature of any ONE individualistic thing, inter-aware of any other thing through a process and connectivity of causal conditions.

Well, I'm not sure you got what I was referring to as non-dualism. Dualism is the experience of the character. It is necessarily dualistic. Non-dualism is a transcending of the character, there is no "I" there. It is what the "I" appears within.

Sap: And goes about simply operating in that light, without thence ever giving even “duality” a second thought.

sam: Sure, if you enjoy it, why would you give it a second thought?

Sap: Hahahaa... You are still interpreting it according your experiences, my friend, which I don't mind at all, but it no longer remains a matter of "enjoyment"; ever-opposite emotions are so intense that they cancel each other out in an inherent sense; what remains is simply a dualistically aware consciousness, that carries water and chops wood, ESSENTIALLY speaking.

Well, that may be but the result is the same. You do what you do, who can say why?

sam: When you dream, a character appears that you identify with as you. When you become aware of your dreaming, the character doesn't disappear, only its identity with you.

uni: Yes, this is a really important point that clears up a lot of misconceptions about "ego." Worth thinking about, especially when there are people around claiming that "ego disappears completely" and such.

Sap: "Ego disappears completely"? Absolutely impossible; otherwise totality would too, and what are the possibilities of that?!

I think his point is that the ego doesn't disappear. My point would be that the persona doesn't disappear. Ego, the thought, "This is what I am," can disappear.

However, it is quite possible to achieve such a state of mind, but only through delusions of grandeur in my opinion.

What do you mean? What do you define as ego?

And BTW, an identity remains too, (the "I"), and that identity necessarily requires certain individualistically held and causally sustained memory capsule, otherwise none of it would make any coherent or logical sense; and two "I's" can never ever be the same, and that is one of the infinite uniqueness that only Existence could offer.

You are talking about the persona, the mental/physical apparatus through which there is an expression. Identity is about, well, identifying with that apparatus as the "I".

So it is illogical to assume that there is some ONE "consciousness" or “awareness” working in all; each one is as unique as it could possibly be.

Really? How do you differentiate "your" awareness from "mine"?

Our False-Ego, lures us into "worshipping" a mere process actually, through desires that also have a positive side, and are necessary for Existence to work.

Right. This is identification. Without the "worship," the body/mind becomes a means of expression rather than an identity to protect and propagate.



divine focus,

To me, the duality is really one of being and knowing. The knowing knows itself as I, and the being simply is. The I is aware of being, but the being is not other than the I. Everything that is, through being, is essentially the same. The I may be aware from different perspectives, but if it is at all, it must be that which is. There is only one thing that is; it is so obvious and apparent to me, and so fundamental, I cannot speak about it or describe it in any other way. This has been before the mountain was no mountain, in my development, though I would not have dared speak about it back then.

Can you tell me if you have had an awakening experience?

[Unidian]

First there was a mountain, and then there was no mountain, and then there was indeed a mountain.

I'm pretty sure Sapius is aware that this is a classic Zen saying, slightly paraphrased. It's quite a good one, too.