GENIUS FORUMS

cousinbasil wrote:

Kelly Jones wrote:Dualism means existence by contrast. E.g. a tree defined in contrast to its environment, and everything else it is not. Things are dualistic, because they exist in that relative way. Clear enough definition for you? Nondualism is the absence of contrast. It doesn't have existence relative to, in contrast with, or dependency on, anything else.

If all the machinations of philosophical discourse yield the output that there is no meaning because none is required,

cousinbasil wrote: If all the machinations of philosophical discourse yield the output that there is no meaning because none is required, then isn't the resulting philosophy meaningless itself? Why is everybody wasting time on this forum?

guest_of_logic wrote:The responses so far have all been pretty vague. Prince proclaims his pet equation without explaining how it relates to non-duality; David asserts that the entire forum is based on non-duality, and trots out a few short sentences that purportedly describe it, but dodges the request for a definition, a description and arguments by claiming that this is treating the matter as a "Western academic issue" whereas according to him "non-duality cannot be understood in this way"; Diebert mentions something about a contrasting black dot on an all-white even surface, but fails to explain the relevance of the analogy; Ryan mentions "jettisoning ... dualistic cognition" but fails to define dualistic cognition; jupiviv tersely declares that to understand non-duality one must transcend it, implying that he has done so but failing to elaborate on what he means.

David asks me, "If you haven't been able to understand these posts in all the years you have been here, then what makes you think that you'll suddenly start understanding them now?"

It's not my understanding of past posts that's lacking, rather the lack is of your definition and description of non-duality. Based on your post, it seems that you use the term "non-duality" either as a synonym for another term as I use it, "the house philosophy", or perhaps as meaning, "that which the house philosophy describes".

I'd like you to explain more clearly why you use that term, though. It's composed of two semantic components, which surely are not arbitrary. Dictionary.com defines "duality" as "the state or quality of being two or in two parts; dichotomy". So, semantically, the term is a negation of the state or quality of being two or in two parts. Could you clarify how this relates to your usage of the term? You could comment, for example, on what it is whose two parts are being negated - what those two parts are and why you negate that there are indeed two. At least superficially, these semantics have not much to do with the descriptive sentences that you trotted out in your previous post.

guest_of_logic wrote:Oh, and Skip: my philosophy is implicit in the way that I approach the philosophy of others, and I don't think that my approach is fairly described as nitpicking. "Real philosophy": I think I do that already, it's possibly just that I take more consideration of the world of empirical phenomenon, or at least those which I've experienced, than you do.

Kunga wrote:non-duality is like your body...there are seamingly separate parts...but they function as a whole
everything is interconnected....everything in the Universe....we are what makes IT up

there is no duality (that's the illusion)
this is one organism (THE UNIVERSE)

jufa wrote:Laird, you are not looking for definition from those in this thread, you are looking to pinpoint others logic as irrational to your, or paint them into a corner so you can say I told you so.

jufa wrote:jufa has given you a definition with explanation, why have you ignored?

skipair wrote:I'm getting a bit tired of having these kinds of discussions at all. Would really rather just chill.

skipair wrote:But until I figure that out exactly I'll comment this.

skipair wrote:This isn't necessarily bad so long as an equal amount of time is spent trying to see how it's exactly right. But I don't see that from you.

skipair wrote:I'm guessing this is because you understand on some level that doing this will naturally undermine all motherly, safety and inherent-good feelings of emotional warmth. And also that you would have to admit in front of David and the rest that you were mistaken the entire time.

I expect that I'll find problems with whatever it turns out that the non-dual perspective is actually being defined as on this forum, but as I wrote in my OP, I'm not looking for an argument in this thread. I've gone only so far as to say that I don't think anyone's been as specific as I hoped for.

I didn't realise that your post was a direct response to my OP. It seemed like you were just talking about topics that interested you - you didn't seem to attempt to define or describe or argue for non-duality in any way. About the closest you got to it was where you wrote, "Come out of your creation, and you come out of the world of dualism; of living from a split personality, and you will stop being the observed, and become the observer."

To be honest, I find it quite difficult to interpret your writing. Your style and grammar are unusual to me. The best that I can make of your message is that you are describing some variant of enlightenment which results in a purity of mind and an awareness of ("a living of") the presence of God. If that's it, then great. I'm all for that.

Skip wrote:Everything is, "Yes, that's interesting but...", or "But that's not how it should be." Never, "Let my try to come up with examples of how this applies". I'm guessing this is because you understand on some level that doing this will naturally undermine all motherly, safety and inherent-good feelings of emotional warmth.

guest_of_logic: I'd like you to explain more clearly why you use that term, though. It's composed of two semantic components, which surely are not arbitrary. Dictionary.com defines "duality" as "the state or quality of being two or in two parts; dichotomy". So, semantically, the term is a negation of the state or quality of being two or in two parts. Could you clarify how this relates to your usage of the term? You could comment, for example, on what it is whose two parts are being negated - what those two parts are and why you negate that there are indeed two. At least superficially, these semantics have not much to do with the descriptive sentences that you trotted out in your previous post.

David: You have more than enough information to understand this issue. The rest is up to you.

jufa wrote:What you expect of others according to what you think is defining and specific cannot even be delivered, in a conversateion with other by you.

jufa wrote:One true to debate must consider all subject matters and take nothing for granted.

jufa wrote:As you are responsible to you, you also are responsible to those you influence directly or indirectly knowingly or not. You, as I, are our brothers keepers, whether we know or understand this.

Kunga wrote:don't tell me i'm going around in circles........i know....

Not true. I've had discussions with other people about non-duality and they were able to describe what to them its meaning was in a way that was specific and definitive enough for me. I took issue with what they described nonetheless, but we at least got to the point of clarity of description.

That depends on the parameters of the debate and the nature of the subject matter. There's a reason for the term "off topic".

Kelly Jones wrote:

cousinbasil wrote:

Kelly Jones wrote:Dualism means existence by contrast. E.g. a tree defined in contrast to its environment, and everything else it is not. Things are dualistic, because they exist in that relative way. Clear enough definition for you? Nondualism is the absence of contrast. It doesn't have existence relative to, in contrast with, or dependency on, anything else.

If all the machinations of philosophical discourse yield the output that there is no meaning because none is required,

Non sequitur.


.

KJ: Nondualism is the absence of contrast. It doesn't have existence relative to, in contrast with, or dependency on, anything else.

cousinbasil: Which makes it and those philosophically attached to it like dogs chasing their tails.

As for "inherent-good feelings of emotional warmth", it's true that I value them. If you want to argue that I put too much value on them then fair enough, but it's not a discussion that I'm interested in having at the moment.

"inherent-good feelings of emotional warmth"

guest_of_logic wrote:What exactly is it that you think I'm mistaken about? It's not my position that emotions should run so rampant that they interfere with one's ability to live a sane life. And you yourself don't seek to eliminate all emotions. So, what, then?

Kunga wrote:Jufa: If everything is interconnected, then man is connected to everything, why then does man have no memory of this connection before birth ?


Kunga: maybe some beings do remember.....but as soon as we are born, we are conditioned and brainwashed... Knuga, thank you for your very good reply. You are correct on the latter end of what you state, but incorrect as to the beginning. Allow me to explain. This is a universe comprised of Spirit forms which must adhere to "the law of the Spirit of life." Consciousness is the Principle Substance and Pattern Essence which is the blue print which Spirit moves over and rise up as the vision of the Principle Substance and Pattern Essence as the forms within the Godhead of the totality of that which IT IS. The law cannot be altered because it is the only law there is. In the realm of Spirit one has to adhere to the consciousness of the Spirit of their thoughts and their thinking, and without a body, there is no matter because there is no material of matter to form a physical body. So all forms are that of Spirit. The reality of living is what one thinks, believes, build, and exist within of that which already is. And with God being Consciousness, and individual consciousness of man, man then become a co-creator of the thought he create of that substance and essence which already is. What man beliefs protray matter as reality, it is then the matter of his thoughts manifest, but not as Spirit. Thus, when one believes in their creation they not only lose discerment, they lose their ability of knowledge as to the reality of who they are,



Jufa: If all we know is of mind awareness, what then do we know of the awareness of mind beyond our own interpretations?

Kunga : There are some of us that are aware of others thoughts.... and know how and why they think as they do Kunga. there are some who are aware of things which appear in the physical world of thoughts, but no one can read or know another thoughts


Jufa: If duality is an illusion, what makes the issue of living within this duality real in outer objective visions, and inner subjective feeling to man?

Kunga: It's after being conditioned to thinking this way after millions of years It is not of being conditioned, it is because from the first to the last you are that which began and continue to live by that which you are. The human DNA insures the conditional pattern of thought within man.



Jufa: If duality is not an illusion, how then is the illusion not seen and objectified to be the same to one and all being all is interconnected?

Kunga: do you mean if NON duality is not an illusion.....Good question...maybe that's why some of us think we are but don't know it (because some parts of
this phenomena (whatever it is) are not awakened.......like some parts of your body fell asleep....lack of proper exercise and nutrients can cause
atrophy .....??????

skipair wrote:I don't think you understand the significant of the infinite/non-duality. [...] Thing is, you live next to Kevin and you are still asking questions about non-duality.

skipair wrote:I accept you as you are, and at the same time I think you would probably discover an amazing new world if you got a punching bag, started eating meat again, and physically let out your repressed aggression

guest_of_logic wrote:

skipair wrote:I don't think you understand the significant of the infinite/non-duality. [...] Thing is, you live next to Kevin and you are still asking questions about non-duality.

I'm just trying to get some clarity on how the term is being used. No one bar Kelly has even attempted to provide a simple definition in this thread. David won't even confirm or deny that by "non-duality" he basically just means what I mean by "the house philosophy", or at least what that philosophy points to. Is that all it's being used to mean? Another label for the QRStian philosophy?