Defining and describing non-duality

[guest_of_logic]

Better than a balloon full of hot air blown by a clown who fancies himself a Zen master.

[cousinbasil]

You cannot define nonduality, because a definition entails something of the form A=A.

If a word can be used meaningfully, then it can be defined, because a definition is nothing more than an encapsulation of a word's meaning.

I was acknowledging this by mentioning the word ineffable. Common definition: adjective: defying expression or description. If a thing is ineffable, then it cannot be described. But saying it cannot be described is describing it.

Once you get a "definition" of nonduality, you are automatically thinking of something else, since language fails to map to the concept because of the nature of the concept and by the inherent limitations of any language (Gödel demonstrated that such a situation is possible.) To further "clarify" things, Gödel's theorem has to do with decidability as opposed to truth; in a nondual world, no decisions are necessary, or even possible.

[guest_of_logic]

I was acknowledging this by mentioning the word ineffable. Common definition: adjective: defying expression or description. If a thing is ineffable, then it cannot be described. But saying it cannot be described is describing it.

But you wrote explicitly in your previous post that David had described it!

Once you get a "definition" of nonduality, you are automatically thinking of something else, since language fails to map to the concept because of the nature of the concept and by the inherent limitations of any language

Sorry, cousinbasil, but this just doesn't make any sense. To use a word meaningfully implies that it has a meaningful definition, which also implies that it maps meaningfully to a concept. If a word doesn't map to any concept then it cannot be used as anything except gibberish. Are you really reducing the term "non-duality" to gibberish?

[Pam Seeback]

movingalways wrote:Laird, when you are still, and I do mean still...

No can do - I've had too much caffeine.

Seriously, though, please go ahead and explain this stillness if you care to.

It is you with duct tape on the mouth of your memories.

[Kunga]

Laird...everything is dependent on everything else for it to exist...we are all connected to this Universe...even though we appear separate we are connected by this one thread of continuity that runs through us all...can you see that ? Nothing inherently exists by itself.

[cousinbasil]

Sorry, cousinbasil, but this just doesn't make any sense. To use a word meaningfully implies that it has a meaningful definition, which also implies that it maps meaningfully to a concept. If a word doesn't map to any concept then it cannot be used as anything except gibberish. Are you really reducing the term "non-duality" to gibberish?

In a sense, yes. And I did say David has described it. Hasn't he? To say he has not would be to imply that nothing he has ever written has described nonduality. Would you really make that argument? Do you agree that there are things beyond description, ie, ineffable things?

Can you think of anything that you cannot describe in words? Good, now please share it with the class.

You are trying to fit a square peg into a round hole (or is it the other way around?)

The key word you use here is "meaningful." I am not convinced anything that goes on at GF is meaningful.

[skipair]

I think Laird understands the mechanics more or less. And as it is for everyone, it's really the question to how much you let it hit home, how much you let it into your heart and influence your entire world-view.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Jufu,

Is it true or not to operate within anything, there must be an infiltration into the fibers and mechanics of that something which does not separate that which has been infiltrated, but use the house which that which infiltrates is hosted by? Reasoning from the outer primeter is another story

it seems true that cognition operates dualistically, and reasoning being dependent on cognition must also operate in dualistic terms. Some of this above stuff of yours I don't follow at all btw....

No division ever occur.

Divison is a strong term, but we divide this from that, and a rational person realizes that the divisions are not there at the deepest level.

Life does not move. Consciousness does not move. Ones soul does not move. What move is one belief of having different experience at different interval of their living within the SILLNESS OF LIFE.

I disagree. From what I gather, you are implying that an experience of stillness is all there is. Stillness is just an experience, but it is not all of consciousness. When the experience is over, one is back with their thinking regular perceptual consciousness.

And I think man can become divided from his true self, based on delusional thinking, emotionalism, ego and attachment. If one is deluded, then all that is there is a deluded brain. Correct me if I'm wrong because I find your writing a tad difficult to follow, but you seem to be implying that whatever his thought pattern, he is already connected with the source, and my position is that if one is very deluded and lost in ego, then he has no connection with the infinite.

[Kunga]

That of which we cannot speak is a source of deep experiential value for me - as it was for the Taoists, Zen Buddhists, and many others. What I am doing is simply acknowledging that we cannot speak of that which we cannot speak of. We can't talk about "the fundamental nature of reality" except in a conventional (non-ultimate) sense. Nagarjuna recognized this in his distinction between samvriti (the conventional) and paramartha (the ultimate). Predictably enough, Nagarjuna never gave a paramartha discourse, in keeping with his view that one cannot be given. All discussions are samvriti by definition, so if our lips or moving or our fingers are typing, we aren't addressing the ultimate. So, in consequence, even Nagarjuna's view of samvriti and paramartha is a samvriti (conventional) view, and does not touch the ultimate. His whole point was that we simply cannot have views about the ultimate.

~Naturyl

[Ryan Rudolph]

Kunga,

His whole point was that we simply cannot have views about the ultimate.

Any teacher who states that the absolute or ultimate cannot be discussed or one cannot take a view on it is full of bullshit, and they are selling you a load of crap. This allows the fake teacher to keep the student spellbound, and gives a sense of mystery around the whole thing. It basically keeps the student confused because it gives the student no cognitive tools to discover wisdom, and sound reasoning.

However, this teaching approach may have stemmed from the limitation of language in communicating the nature of reality to the student, but language/thought is all we have to communicate and discern truth, so this approach seems highly flawed and bizarre to me.

If one cannot discuss or have views on the ultimate, then why study philosophy at all? we might as well close down genius forum because there is nothing to discuss here.

how absurd!

[Kunga]

We can't talk about "the fundamental nature of reality" except in a conventional (non-ultimate) sense. Nagarjuna recognized this in his distinction between samvriti (the conventional) and paramartha (the ultimate).

so whatever is explained and discussed is done in a conventional manner...("the tao that can be said is not the tao")
yes...you can speak about views...but conventionally.

Any teacher who states that the absolute or ultimate cannot be discussed or one cannot take a view on it is full of bullshit,

can you explain to someone the taste of honey ?


On the Tao :

"Those who know do not speak, those who speak, do not know" (Lao Tzu)

[Dan Rowden]

What is it about the ultimate that makes it ineffable?

[Kunga]

i don't know (and my not knowing dosn't mean i know) lol

it's something that has to be experienced ?

[Dan Rowden]

What has to be experienced?

[Kunga]

What has to be experienced?

Enlightenment

[Dan Rowden]

What's that?

[Kunga]

when you realize and experience the same thing Buddha did ....and you are a Buddha...

[Dan Rowden]

What did the Buddha realise and experience? I mean, you're the one telling this story...

[Kunga]

he realized his butt was sore...so he got up

[Kunga]

i don;t know what he realized and experienced....but it must of been THE ULTIMATE TRUTH .

[Dan Rowden]

Which is what? What do you mean by the words "ultimate truth"?

[Anders Schlander]

How do you know that the Infinite can't be described if you can't describe the infinite?
edit: reversed it

[guest_of_logic]

And I did say David has described it. Hasn't he? To say he has not would be to imply that nothing he has ever written has described nonduality. Would you really make that argument?

I wouldn't, but I would make the argument that he's been deliberately obscurantist in this thread, and that when a clear explanation has emerged, he's done his best to distance himself from it (the carcass comment). This, I suggest, is due to a desire on his part to preserve his claim that I fail to understand non-duality, which a clear explanation of same would dispel.

Do you agree that there are things beyond description, ie, ineffable things?

I think it's possible, yes.

Can you think of anything that you cannot describe in words? Good, now please share it with the class.

Furblegrumbkin.

The key word you use here is "meaningful." I am not convinced anything that goes on at GF is meaningful.

Good heavens, man, there are those here who possess Ultimate Truth in the palm of their hands: is that not meaningful enough for you?!

[guest_of_logic]

movingalways wrote:Laird, when you are still, and I do mean still...

No can do - I've had too much caffeine.

Seriously, though, please go ahead and explain this stillness if you care to.

It is you with duct tape on the mouth of your memories.

I do sometimes wonder that memory interferes with the spontaneity of the moment...

[Anders Schlander]

And I did say David has described it. Hasn't he? To say he has not would be to imply that nothing he has ever written has described nonduality. Would you really make that argument?

I wouldn't, but I would make the argument that he's been deliberately obscurantist in this thread, and that when a clear explanation has emerged, he's done his best to distance himself from it (the carcass comment). This, I suggest, is due to a desire on his part to preserve his claim that I fail to understand non-duality, which a clear explanation of same would dispel.

.

I don't know really.... You realize If that was true clearly David seems insane then, if he desires for you to be forever distant from direct knowledge of God, yet says that he likes the exact opposite for people. I'm sure you've seen the opening of his webpage. Maybe you simply see it as obscuring when it's actually revealing, because you see things upside down. It's relative, ofcourse...It depends what 'eyes' you're seeing things from.

I would argue though, that it is not obscured. It often is, but sometimes what is obscured is people's perceptions of what non-duality is, and not non-duality, so when people do try to point, which is all you can do, it fails, the more you try, the more people will tell you you are dodging the question 'what is nirvana', 'what is god', and yet, that is not the case, they tell you you're 'obscuring', or 'hiding' or 'complicating', but u are as direct as you can be, it is People's perceptions of what 'god' is that causes people to think that you are being over-complicating, or being indirect.