Deaf to Non-duality!

[David Quinn]

It is not my intention to pick on Alex ("Talking Ass") and Laird ("guest_of_logic") specifically, but I'd like to talk for a moment about the lack of aptitude for understanding non-duality which occurs in a certain class of people, of which Alex and Laird are two examples.

Of course, when I say "class of people", I am really talking about 99% of the human race, including almost all intellectuals. The typical human animal, in other words. Whenever a member of this class is directed towards the realm of non-duality by the spiritual philosopher, their minds invariably draw a blank. They look to see where the philosopher is pointing and they see .... nothing. Try as they might, they simply cannot see what the philosopher sees. It's as if they feel that the philosopher is playing a trick on them.

So where does this lack of aptitude come from? What causes it?

Straight away we can rule out a lack of intellectual capacity. Alex and Laird, for example, are both intelligent people who easily possess the intellectual capacity to understand non-duality, and yet they both fail utterly. So we have to look elsewhere.

Is it emotional? Is it a case of being too emotionally invested in certain kinds of dualistic concepts and beliefs that they cannot bring themselves to break away from them and make the leap into the unknown and uncertain realm of non-duality?

Is it the path they have taken in life? Have their experiences and choices led them along a path which deviates too far away from the philosophic path, such that they can no longer even see it, let alone contemplate making the transition over to it?

Is it genetic/neurological? Is it akin to, say, not being able to read, such that no matter how much they try and grasp the principles of the matter, they just cannot do it on a neurological level?

One would guess that it is a combination of all these factors. A genetic or neurological weakness in spiritual thinking leads them from an early age to make choices in life that shape their paths in life away from the kind of mentality needed for spiritual philosophizing, while at the same time their emotional well-being forms around this path. And so, by the time they reach adulthood, the distance between them and the beginnings of understanding non-dualism becomes so lengthy that it disappears over the horizon and extends well out of sight.

C'est la vie. Such is life, eh?

It's interesting to note that if a certain class of people were to display an entrenched inability to read, then we could be sure that it would be thoroughly investigated by the scientific community. There would be countless research papers produced, teaching programs devised, targeted drugs created, surgical procedures mapped out - whatever the solution is, everything would be done to find it. But when it comes to the inability to understand non-duality, which is an infinitely more serious problem than not knowing how to read, there is a complete void. There are no investigations. No scientific research. No media exposure. Nothing. There isn't even a recognition that the problem exists.

An indication, if any were needed, of just how primitive and unevolved the human race really is, despite all the razzle-dazzle of science and modern technology.

-

[jupiviv]

How are you defining non-duality? I'm guessing that you are defining it as the awareness that whatever we see is reality - in other words, applying logic to all aspects of our lives. Is that what you mean?

If so, then the reason why people don't think in that way is simply that they either can't or don't think sincerely and for themselves, and for the sake of thinking itself. While women don't use logic at all, men use it like a block of wood, rather than like a finely crafted Swiss knife which can suit itself to every task. The thinking of most men is like a stream which culminates into a pond or worse yet a lake, rather than like a mighty river which swallows up everything in its path before entering the ocean.

On the other hand, if by "non-duality" you mean the kind of thinking which posits the whole as more real than the individual parts in that whole, then I would say that many people think like that. Women, for example.

[Kunga]

its only logical that non-duality is the only reality...it's not that difficult to comprehend (difficult sometimes to realize experientially)...but we are conditioned from the time we are born to live in duality...maybe it's all the same...the same game...and what's logical to a woman might not be logical to a man....so there !!! :+

as far as my comprehension of non-duality goes...it's like this : Materialistically everything is made from the same stuff (atoms). Everything is empty . Nothing inherently exists ( everything is the product of causes and conditions...stuff didn't just "pop" into existence on it's own accord .)

So as things appear to be separate...they are all interdependent and connected...if one thing starts to unravel...a chain reaction begins...as we are all connected....one....non-dual......


(anyways...this is where i'm at....am i on the right track ? )

[Ryan Rudolph]

I would suggest that non-dualism is counter-intuitive for most of the population due to how cognition has evolved in the human animal. So much evolutionary emphasis is focused on survival, that cognition has evolved to think in materialistic and dualistic terms as a means to increase its own chances of survival, and the spread of genes.

In biology, some organisms have over 60% of their anatomy dedicated to reproduction alone, and that doesn't include gathering food, and so on. So I wonder what these percentages are for the human animal.

Moreover, Human cognition is presently enslaved to the material demands of the organism, which has its basis in dualism. People need to place tremendous importance on survival, work, reproduction because their organism demands it. Cognition demands its continuity. Thought needs an excuse to continue bouncing around in circles so it is inherently conditioned to see reality in very linear dualistic terms. Because if you take a non-dualistic philosophy too far, the survival of your organism is temporary threatened, and people are too conditioning to fear death, fear disappointing their family, fear losing out, fear losing friends, fear being perceived as weak, fear, fear, fear.

Thought will weasel around non-dualism from an early age, due to the enormous implications...

[Kunga]

would suggest that non-dualism is counter-intuitive for most of the population due to how cognition has evolved in the human animal.

i think mans incessant search for "God" proves his intuition is trying to tell him something....hasn't man throught his evolutionary journey...strived in his own way to find the truth ? I think it's mans inherent nature to be driven to know the cause of his existence. Rare is it to not question or ponder lifes mysterys....dispite the need to survive and all it's distractions....Mans basic drive besides sex and survival is to know the truth.

[Unidian]

It is not my intention to pick on Alex ("Talking Ass") and Laird ("guest_of_logic") specifically, but I'd like to talk for a moment about the lack of aptitude for understanding non-duality which occurs in a certain class of people, of which Alex and Laird are two examples.

That "class of people" consists of intelligent critical thinkers who do not simply swallow wholesale whatever is peddled their way. I've been talking to Laird about non-duality and Eastern concepts for years, and yet he still expresses objections and asks thoughtful questions. Do I conclude from this that he is somehow deficient and lacking in spiritual capacity? No - quite the opposite. His objections are consistently thoughtful, fair, and well-stated.

If I were an egomaniac, I might think to myself, "Damn, I've been bestowing my great wisdom on this guy for years and he still has the nerve to raise objections. Clearly he's dense." And that's precisely the line of thinking I see here in your post, when we strip away the pretense.

Of course, when I say "class of people", I am really talking about 99% of the human race, including almost all intellectuals. The typical human animal, in other words. Whenever a member of this class is directed towards the realm of non-duality by the spiritual philosopher, their minds invariably draw a blank. They look to see where the philosopher is pointing and they see .... nothing. Try as they might, they simply cannot see what the philosopher sees. It's as if they feel that the philosopher is playing a trick on them.

Then perhaps you should look at your own approach. If you're having such abysmal success rates, maybe the problem is you.

So where does this lack of aptitude come from? What causes it?

Your own imagination and your desire to rationalize the aforementioned abysmal success rates.

Straight away we can rule out a lack of intellectual capacity. Alex and Laird, for example, are both intelligent people who easily possess the intellectual capacity to understand non-duality, and yet they both fail utterly.

They "fail utterly?" in order to know that, you'd have to be God. Then again, I forgot - you are.

So we have to look elsewhere.

Is it emotional? Is it a case of being too emotionally invested in certain kinds of dualistic concepts and beliefs that they cannot bring themselves to break away from them and make the leap into the unknown and uncertain realm of non-duality?

No.

Is it the path they have taken in life? Have their experiences and choices led them along a path which deviates too far away from the philosophic path, such that they can no longer even see it, let alone contemplate making the transition over to it?

Absolutely not. Laird is one of the most philosophical people I know. You fail to see this simply because, for you, "the philosophic path" means "David Quinn's path." As we know from dozens of prior discussions, those who do not agree with David Quinn are simply not philosophers, thinkers, or probably even conscious.

Is it genetic/neurological? Is it akin to, say, not being able to read, such that no matter how much they try and grasp the principles of the matter, they just cannot do it on a neurological level?

Of course not. Lulz.

One would guess that it is a combination of all these factors. A genetic or neurological weakness in spiritual thinking leads them from an early age to make choices in life that shape their paths in life away from the kind of mentality needed for spiritual philosophizing, while at the same time their emotional well-being forms around this path. And so, by the time they reach adulthood, the distance between them and the beginnings of understanding non-dualism becomes so lengthy that it disappears over the horizon and extends well out of sight.

Or, alternatively, you are just a lousy teacher with fraudulent doctrines. Occam's razor, anyone?

C'est la vie. Such is life, eh?

Quite.

It's interesting to note that if a certain class of people were to display an entrenched inability to read, then we could be sure that it would be thoroughly investigated by the scientific community. There would be countless research papers produced, teaching programs devised, targeted drugs created, surgical procedures mapped out - whatever the solution is, everything would be done to find it. But when it comes to the inability to understand non-duality, which is an infinitely more serious problem than not knowing how to read, there is a complete void. There are no investigations. No scientific research. No media exposure. Nothing. There isn't even a recognition that the problem exists.

Indeed, how ghastly. There should be a worldwide push to teach Quinnology comparable to (or, ideally greater than) curing cancer, creating literacy, etc. Promoting the "philosophic path" and "understanding non-duality" (in ways consistent with David Quinn's thinking) should be the great task of all world effort. Well, that and singing praises to Dear Leader Kim Jong-Il (he is the Sun of the Korean preeple).

An indication, if any were needed, of just how primitive and unevolved the human race really is, despite all the razzle-dazzle of science and modern technology.

Very much so, yes. Your mammoth ego and the inability for it to be addressed psychiatrically are certainly that.

[Unidian]

Generalissimo Dear Leader David Quinn is a rare great man of Philosophic type who was born at Mt. Weininger, the sacred mountain of our nation, and made an unusual growth amidst the special philosophic education of Eternal President Kevin Solway, brilliant commander of QRS, as well as the practical training of the philosophic struggle. He personifies the philosophic spirit, trait and nature of Mt. Weininger. The revolutionary spirit of Mt. Weininger personified by him is the spirit of independence associated with the soul of Non-Duality, the spirit of beardedness inheriting the lineage of Solway, the indefatigable philosophic spirit replete with the mettle of untreated schizoid disorder and the misogynistic spirit consistent with cheerfulness of Kelly Jones. The revolutionary trait of Mt. Weininger possessed by him is pluck and courage of Genius-style giant, ever-victorious sagacity of the brilliant commander of QRS, broad-mindedness befitting a heroic unshaven man, organizing ability of leading millions of people, indefatigable pathological spirit, strong ability of execution."

[Talking Ass]

coyote put his bible in his sheath
and went out upon the earth
to set devious little jesus snares

coyote, so pious!
a tarnished canine apostle
with a broken tooth

made from wind & harpstrings
blessed & blazoned & sharp as stars
he moved like a cartoon from bush to bush
and laid out the subtle jesus snares
one by crafty one

he set 'em out in the sparkling shadows on zarathustra hill
where the only sound was the sniffling of the zennish ubermenchen
up where infinity meets twilight and they marry
there between tincans & juicy bottoms & memories
he carefully laid 'em out
snickering

coyote coyote coyote
you and your devious piety

down in the crags where the dharmabirds wailed like bottleflies
with random fruitfilled logic he placed the jesus snares
and all the girls knelt with their ears to a rubber door, sighing

but then a voice as large as a cloud came upon him
and coyote shit his pants
and cursed his luck
adwaita had him cornered at last!

even coyote’s magic seeds & his bafflehoops & all his dreary poesy
were no match for adwaita who towered over him like a plasma mountain

advaita tried to reason with coyote
he cajoled him
he told him the story of the blind men and the elephant
he rangled coyotes mind with images of
water and waves
self-illuminating lamps
mirrors & reflections
and coyote started to go under...
his head started to spin...
and nirvana rose up in him
bright as a fig

then, adwaita carefully enunciated with all his brahminical authority:

"what we call 'body' and 'mind'
are mere abstractions from an identity experience
that cannot be reduced to the one
or the other abstraction,
nor can it be hypostatized
into some sort of THING
without falsifying its very being."

but right at that moment coyote leaped up and enlaced advaita
in one of his more devious jesus-snares
and no sooner could you say ave maria he had him tied like a lamb
to his judeo-christian historical project
and strung up between judea and greece and rome and alexandria
and was reading to advaita from 'the lives of the saints'
back in his lair
listening to 'ice cream for crow' by captain beefheart

advaita just sat there blinking

[RobertGreenSky]

This thread turned out quite well, and last night I had no hopes for it at all. :D Thanks Unidian and AlexTA!

[Blair]

Yeah....Revenge of the Three Stooges..

[Philosophaster]

Oh, I think this forum can offer far more than just three of them.

[RobertGreenSky]

Yeah....Revenge of the Three Stooges..

From the non-dual perspective it is a stoogeness which is in turn in accord with the Totality.

Three Stoogenesses in accord with the Totality would be overdoing it, as would concepts of Moeness, Larryness, and Curlyness (and occasionally Shempness).

[Kelly Jones]

Some people have heightened senses, like blind people have heightened hearing. One could colourfully say, a blind person is a tiny slip of a body with a big pair of ears. A big pair of ears wandering around with a tiny little body.

But in the world of the spirit, there are wispy things everywhere - no ears, no eyes, no nothing. Perhaps big mouths, and yet the mouths are really quite small, since they also say nothing.


.

[RobertGreenSky]

Some people have heightened senses, like blind people have heightened hearing. One could colourfully say, a blind person is a tiny slip of a body with a big pair of ears. A big pair of ears wandering around with a tiny little body.

But in the world of the spirit, there are wispy things everywhere - no ears, no eyes, no nothing. Perhaps big mouths, and yet the mouths are really quite small, since they also say nothing.


.

Show them Nagarjuna or show them Huang Po, they babble on instead about Totality and A = A which those masters never had occasion to even break wind at - I shall do it on their behalf.

[Kelly Jones]

If you know what is ultimately real, you can use any words to describe it.

Anyway, since you know that no words can encapsulate the nature of Reality, yet words are obviously useful in pointing to it, why are you upset about the use of words and concepts in communication?


.

[RobertGreenSky]

If you know what is ultimately real, you can use any words to describe it.

Anyway, since you know that no words can encapsulate the nature of Reality, yet words are obviously useful in pointing to it, why are you upset about the use of words and concepts in communication?


.

Unidian and I have repeatedly indicated we must communicate. We have also pointed out again and again that Dao e.g. is beyond conceptualization, and we've pointed out that reality is only conventionally real. You treat conceptualization as the end of things since you've never understood that Daoism-Buddhism speak of a different dimension. Beyond that, your concepts A = A and Totality are not Buddhist and Daoist; far as I can tell they are literally ego gratification.

[Unidian]

You do not "know what is ultimately real," Kelly. Neither does Dear Leader Quinn Jong-Il.

The Taoist and Zen traditions, which you guys opportunistically co-opt and shamelessly mangle, are quite clear that no one "knows" what is "ultimately real." Rather, what is "ultimately real" is beyond any such "knowing," and is the stuff of direct, mindful experience.

You and Dear Leader are mistaking a figment of your own egotism for "Ultimate Reality."

[Diebert van Rhijn]

So where does this lack of aptitude come from? What causes it?

It's perfectly understandable the consequences of a deeper comprehension would be rejected vicariously and often larded over with some mild or serious scorn and laughter to feel safer. Not to mention the tendency to move in packs.

Just think of what any step toward any serious interest and attention would bring:

* Admitting one has been wrong so far in every step of a discussion, not only here but often many years of moving away in straight opposition to life and truth has to be admitted. For the average man this is near impossible, he would rather die than to withdraw all the investments. It would be easier for a woman to make that specific psychological turn, in the rare case she arrives there.

* A journey would start which not only would force one to release many closely held convictions, it will also open doors to seeing the more ruthless, monstrous side of their current attachments. A possible nightmare would begin when a start would be made addressing them in any practical sense, for example the consequences for family ties, pet projects, any status and achievements so far, so much would be rendered meaningless.

* Since the journey would require a thorough rewiring down to even our neural pathways, the effort and tensions involved might just be too high considering the age of the ones we're talking about. If one doesn't start pulling things together spontaneously from a young age, because the truthful mind demands it, no matter how it almost drowns in the sea of inattentiveness and hormone or tradition driven behaviour around them, there's just no incentive to turn things around later, unless some crazy devastating event, or a strong faith or desperation would provide the drive. But even then one might only go so far with it and settle with a little introduction.

One other question that could arise: why hang around so long at a place where the message and the messenger are clearly so much in the wrong, "removed from reality", pathological, uninformed, etc? Personally, after one or two discussions I wouldn't waste my time anymore, everything at some point is said and is one really trying to "reach" some souls, to "correct" them? Some members stay here obviously because the tolerant nature of the forum provides a meagre form of acceptance, which turns into self-validation. Some members hang around because of some loneliness. Others seem to be driven by entertainment, the possibility to feel superior to the "wrong" ideas somehow boosts their own feelings of self worth.

But really, I'd like some input...all the ones that keep coming back to this forum, why would you do it? What do you think drives you? Perhaps you're here just to clog things up and keep younger flexible minds from discussing anything?

[David Quinn]

I've been talking to Laird about non-duality and Eastern concepts for years, and yet he still expresses objections and asks thoughtful questions. Do I conclude from this that he is somehow deficient and lacking in spiritual capacity?

Anyone can ask questions. That's an easy thing to do. Laird certainly tries hard and does put a lot of effort into his posts, but as a rule, I haven't found his questions to be very intelligent. The core reason for this is his lack of empathy for non-duality and its wisdom.

His questions are always too many steps removed from the essential matter to be meaningful. Not that he is aware of this.

Of course, when I say "class of people", I am really talking about 99% of the human race, including almost all intellectuals. The typical human animal, in other words. Whenever a member of this class is directed towards the realm of non-duality by the spiritual philosopher, their minds invariably draw a blank. They look to see where the philosopher is pointing and they see .... nothing. Try as they might, they simply cannot see what the philosopher sees. It's as if they feel that the philosopher is playing a trick on them.

Then perhaps you should look at your own approach. If you're having such abysmal success rates, maybe the problem is you.

A perfect Buddha could materialize in front of these people and articulate the truth in the clearest possible manner and still it would stump them. They are simply too far removed from the receptive areas, neurologically speaking.

It's a fascinating phenomenon, but also one with terrible consequences.

-

[Unidian]

But really, I'd like some input...all the ones that keep coming back to this forum, why would you do it? What do you think drives you? Perhaps you're here just to clog things up and keep younger flexible minds from discussing anything?

Yes, Dilbert van Quinn, we are sent by Satan to corrupt the promising youth who might otherwise embark on Lofty Genius quests.

Our evil "pack" is here to speak lies and deceit about Dear Leader Quinn Jong-Il, threatening the very survival of wisdom merely so we can continue to revel in our worldly attachments. And what rewarding worldly attachments we have - oh Rapture! A bunch of guys without jobs, money, or cars. Well, Philo has a car and a little money, so maybe he really is an agent of Mara sent to lead potential Geniuses astray from the True Path.

You figured us out, oh great Dilbert Who Tries To Gain Favor By Echoing Whatever He Thinks Quinn Would Say. We stand exposed in the cold light of Quinnviction.

[Unidian]

A perfect Buddha could materialize in front of these people and articulate the truth in the clearest possible manner and still it would stump them. They are simply too far removed from the receptive areas, neurologically speaking.

Do you often make up scientific hypotheses and present them as fact without the slightest (valid) evidence or qualification?

Is the ability to do that with a straight face another benefit of dwelling in the Lofty Realms?

And is talking derisively about the "neurology" of others really wise when one one's own brain is diagnostically confirmed to reside in a glass house?

[David Quinn]

A perfect Buddha could materialize in front of these people and articulate the truth in the clearest possible manner and still it would stump them. They are simply too far removed from the receptive areas, neurologically speaking.

Do you often make up scientific hypotheses and present them as fact without the slightest (valid) evidence or qualification?

It's a wisdom issue, not a scientific one. It is something that only an expert in wisdom can determine.

Is the ability to do that with a straight face another benefit of dwelling in the Lofty Realms?

I never say anything with a straight face.

And is talking derisively about the "neurology" of others really wise when one one's own brain is diagnostically confirmed to reside in a glass house?

My point wasn't concerned with whatever psychiatric issues these people might have, but on the limitations of "normal neurology", for want of a better term, and its distance from the neurology involved in comprehending wisdom. In other words, it was a comment on human normality in general, rather than specific cases of abnormality.

-

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Yes, Dilbert van Quinn, we are sent by Satan to corrupt the promising youth who might otherwise embark on Lofty Genius quests.

A potential clog at that stage but not intentionally of course. I meant it in the sense of someone refusing to move forward but positioning himself obstinately with chances others keep on bumping into him. One cannot help it, really, this is the curse of limited consciousness, try a busy train station or inner city walkways to get the picture.

No seriously, why wasting your time with continuously addressing tongue in cheek a philosophy you despise its very core of? Life is relatively short and witty ridicule is not a very rewarding type of negativity. Or are you really that bored with your own stuff? Give me a break here when I try to sincerely understand the motives of a mind at least creative and intelligent enough to make some sense once in a blue moon. It's not like I haven't been in similar situations but at some point: live and let live. Or you understand and forgive the ignorance while moving on to more interesting thing, or you don't have a clue and move on to more interesting things. To me any other approach seems a bit obsessive and wasteful.

[Kelly Jones]

If you know what is ultimately real, you can use any words to describe it.

Anyway, since you know that no words can encapsulate the nature of Reality, yet words are obviously useful in pointing to it, why are you upset about the use of words and concepts in communication?

Unidian and I have repeatedly indicated we must communicate. We have also pointed out again and again that Dao e.g. is beyond conceptualization,

What do you think the Dhamma is? A load of meaningless chatter, devoid of concepts? Concepts are used to point to the Dao, and the Dao is present in concepts.

.... and we've pointed out that reality is only conventionally real.

Yet Gotama said ---

"Nirvana comes to you,
when you understand thoroughly,
and when you live according to your understanding,
that all things are of one essence
and that there is but one law.
Hence, there is but one Nirvana
as there is but one truth,
not two or three. "

You treat conceptualization as the end of things

I see that concepts are unavoidably and necessarily one more manifestation of the Dao.

since you've never understood that Daoism-Buddhism speak of a different dimension.

...there is but one law....there is but one truth....

Beyond that, your concepts A = A and Totality are not Buddhist and Daoist; far as I can tell they are literally ego gratification.

The concept A=A means that a thing is what it is, in contrast to what it is not.

This means, a thing's existence is dependent on what it is not.

Does this concept ring any bells for you?


.

[guest_of_logic]

The house philosophy, insofar as it represents itself as non-dual, is largely a perspective, and, as with all perspectives, its value varies for the individual. It needn't be a one-size-fits-all approach. If you, David, or any other of the house philosophers, find value in the perspective that all is empty; that the self has no essential identity by which to demarcate its boundaries from the rest of the universe, and if this perspective leads you into a sense of peace and equanimity (or "immersion in the Infinite", for whatever that phrase is worth), then more power to you. It is no more valid, though, than my perspective, nor than Alex's, which have value to us. You might want to consider the egotism at play in your need for your way to be THE way, in contrast to your claim to egolessness (to whatever extent you make that claim).