Non-Duality/Oneness is an Ego Game

The concept of oneness is a hypocritical contradiction played by ego-self thereby, reinforcing separation and division. To assert oneness as some sort of non-dualistic experience is itself dualistic, since it asserts two contrary modes of experience, dualistic vs non-dualistic.

You can never leave duality even for a nanosecond, since the transition presupposes changing from one state or position to an opposite and contrary state or position, dualistic to non-dualistic.

Seeking an experience of non-dualistic oneness presupposes you are not that, and thus, only asserts more dualism in your attempt to become an experience that you are NOT. This is not simply semantics, but experiential as well.

In claiming to experience non-dualistic oneness, you assert that there is some other position to be experienced that is not NOW experienced and thus assert and experience dualism.

Essentially, you are trapped in the paradox of two becoming one, since by its very nature to have Oneness as Truth, this means there could never have been a two-ness or duality to begin with. To be timeless, non-duality means, there could never have been time of dualism.

To assert that there IS dualistic time negates non-dualism or at the least, it means dualism is not the absolute truth that you think it is and thus seek to have as an experience. To be absolute truth it must be immediately accessible always, therefore, there could have never been a time when we were NOT experiencing non-dualistic oneness without the limits of space/time (which is dualism).

Seeking non-dual oneness is impossible because two-ness, or the many, has already been asserted as OPPOSITE to what you seek. But non-dualism has NO opposite, otherwise it would be dualistic.

This is a fascinating ego game that has been played for centuries and it's called: “I want to switch from dualism to non-dualism but the fact that I believe there is a difference between the TWO, keeps me in conflict”

Peace Angels,
mikeS

Re: Non-Duality/Oneness is an Ego Game

Great thoughts- very valid as a cohesive whole way of looking at the subject.  There is no one-ness and no need to strive for it.

Very cool.

Re: Non-Duality/Oneness is an Ego Game

Thanks Davie,

I imagine this thread will probably not garner much interest, since it tend to trash the conceptualization of non-duality and alot  of folks have a great deal of investment in their concepts of non-duality, awakening, enlightenment, oneness, realization, etc, etc.
There seems to be a major investment in ancient texts and teachers that cannot be questioned.

So let me add a new concept to the mix, “surprise.” (feel free to question!)

There is no path and nothing you can do to be “surprised,” since that would only spoil the “surprise.” LOL!

Peace Angels,
mikeS

Re: Non-Duality/Oneness is an Ego Game

Ahoy Mike!

Well, I kinda like the concept of Oneness cuz I find it useful- mostly as a finger pointing at something (or nonsomething) else.  And it's fun to talk about.

But, if we toss Oneness and toss Duality at the same time…  then we end up on the very tabula rasa which i generally refer to as Oneness.  And then we don't even need the word, eh?

Yeah, there's a lotta “believing” in the world- specifically in texts, ideas, oral traditions passed on by politicians, priests and parents… I also prefer experience and my own personal custom of Questioning.  And my other custom of Listening with the assumption that there is Something To Be Gleaned By Listening.  If I didn't have this Listening thingy, I might turn preachy.  (chuckle)

A lot of declarations are equally true in their entirely inversed state.  Such as:

There is no suprise, no concepts, no words, no oneness, no duality, no truth and no understanding.

Also:

Everything is entirely a suprise, entirely known, entirely described by itself, true in itself and full of wisdom.

Or there are the declarations: I am not anything.  I am everything.  Both of which are valid.

First there is a static (illusory) point of reference.
Then there is flexibility and the reference point becomes dynamic.
Then reference begins to cease.
Then reference occurs but not between things.

Sorta anyway.  Not a truth, just a quick blab.

Hugs,
davie

Re: Non-Duality/Oneness is an Ego Game

davie,

I also prefer experience and my own personal custom of Questioning.

Yes, the 'drive-to-question' (hyphenated to denote unity) is also my preferred mode. In fact, I suppose i could say it is my 'religion.' This mode of living also requires listening in order to know which questions to ask.

There is no suprise, no concepts, no words, no oneness, no duality, no truth and no understanding.

I would state that if there were no concepts, no words, no oneness, etc, etc, that would be surprise.

Everything is entirely a suprise, entirely known, entirely described by itself, true in itself and full of wisdom.

Unfortunately, that wouldn't be very surprising at all.

Of course, 'surprise' is a concept itself. American heritage defines it as: “To encounter suddenly or unexpectedly; take or catch unawares” and ”To cause to feel wonder, astonishment, or amazement, as at something unanticipated.”
Seems to me a much better concept or “finger pointing at the moon” then oneness or awakening. Because it's a surprise! LOL

But, hey, I'm just saying…
mikeS

Re: Non-Duality/Oneness is an Ego Game

Clever logic!

Re: Non-Duality/Oneness is an Ego Game

My dear friend, Alan,

It involves a switch for the idea of “either/or” to “both.”  There is no opposite.  That word's a misunderstanding, in oneness.

yes, but I believe “switch” is the operative word. The two, or “either/or” become one or both. How can you state there is no opposite, when clearly the many and the one oppose? “either/or” is a different experience than “both.”

Which is why you hear awake people talking about finding what's always there, as apposed to switching to something else.  

To assert that something is found presupposes a loss. Two opposing experiences. Loss and discovery are NOT simultaneous experiences.

I agree that we must immerse ourselves in the paradox and I believe that is what we are doing. Once we posit or assert that we know what we seek based on our experience and the comparison of that experience with the reports of others, I believe we become stuck.

Once one asserts awakening, he must be asleep, because there is NO difference since there is NO opposite to non-duality because it is not two or many or but one. Not asleep or awake, since those are dualistic opposed propositions.

another way to look at it: duality is inherant in language, but the only way to reach cosmic truths in language is to believe both sides of any dualistic statement.  Oneness is possible/oneness is impossible, unless both make sense and are recognized as true, duality is the name of the game.

language is thought, Alan. I get what your attempting to explain, however, language/thought must be utilized to take one part way on that journey to what you cannot EXPECT. Once you expect you know what it is, you assert a way to find it, but if it is not lost it cannot be found and there is no way to find it.

There ia a sense of “expectation” in spiritual seeking that can only negate what you look to find in the assumption of loss or simply NOT having.

Peace Angels,
mikeS

Re: Non-Duality/Oneness is an Ego Game

That the many and the one oppose is a belief, a viewpoint, a position.  And definately it's one that can be backed up with logic and “fact.”

Re: Non-Duality/Oneness is an Ego Game

Alan,

What makes you think babies “perceive”? What do babies 'see' with physical sight? Objects? colors? Language is a direct result of egoic intellect. You may 'see' a world without language or intellect, but you will not 'perceive' a world and what you 'see' will have no order or significance to it. Is that 'awakening'? ah, the pre/trans fallacy.
Perception presupposes knowing what one is seeing. Perception chooses what to see, by identifying and naming what should be seen. Perception often sees what is not there due to a faulty intellect. What you seem to be addressing is intuition rather than perception.

I keep saying language is limited and limiting, and in  a sense it is.  If you never believe in a perception beyond language, as you assert, oneness is a strange and mistake-ridden ideology.

Actually I didn't assert that language is NOT limited, merely that it must be employed to take one along the way. How far along the way, I cannot say. But if the ego-self did not consider a way out of its discomfort or suffering, if the ego-self did not consider seeking something different, there would be no religion or spiritual seeking at all. Too, often the ego is demonized as that which we must transcend, when in fact it is the ego-self that arrives at that conclusion. Oneness as an ideology is mistaken, since it cannot be idealized and many attempt to do just that resulting in an expectation of what oneness is, which means it cannot be that, (neti, neti)

Peace Angels,

mikeS

Re: Non-Duality/Oneness is an Ego Game

What makes me think babies percieve?  Oh my!  We are covering anything and everything in this debate, eh? 

Re: Non-Duality/Oneness is an Ego Game

Definition of perception: the act or faculty of apprehending by means of the senses or of the mind; cognition; understanding.

babies are taught understanding and cognition. therefore, theoretically, there is no perception as in apprehension of what is seen, even though there is certainly physical sight. A good foundation for this would be Object Relations theory.

mikeS

Re: Non-Duality/Oneness is an Ego Game

  Babies are not taught. they learn.   Babies naturally make every sound in all languages at a  young age, for example, but eventually their range of sounds limits itself to what those around the babies speak.  No one ever tries to tell a baby: 'use only these sounds.'  

Re: Non-Duality/Oneness is an Ego Game

Well, Mike, looks like you got more interest than you anticipated, some very interesting posts by davie and Alan. I think it would be helpful for those following this thread who haven't had a chance to read your most recent blog SURPRISE!!! to check it out, as it helps provide further context for your approach.

Love,

Nicole

Re: Non-Duality/Oneness is an Ego Game

It wasn't my definition. It came from the American Heritage dictionary.

Peace Angels,
mikeS

Re: Non-Duality/Oneness is an Ego Game

Oh.   : ) Well, it's society's definition then.  I wonder if it's worked very well for us?  In describing ourselves, or the world?

Re: Non-Duality/Oneness is an Ego Game

You're right, Alan, we are walking around half-blind and half-alive if we are without our intuition and our other senses…

Peace,

Nicole

Re: Non-Duality/Oneness is an Ego Game

(laughing)

Re: Non-Duality/Oneness is an Ego Game

Mike I read your SURPRISE blog entry.  I guess I wasn't surprised.  As usual you rail against any number of spiritual disciplines without, I would wager, any real first hand knowledge of any these paths.  You expound on the value of Surprise.  If you spent any time actually pursuing any of these paths you might be surprised where they lead.  It seems to me your critique is based on the intellectual perception of someone on the outside looking in. 

I will grant you that “surprise” is where it's at.  If by surprise you mean always seeing everything as new.  When one lives entirely focused on the Present Moment everything is eternally new.  Duality, oneness, enlightenment are all concepts, thoughts.  Expectations take one out of the moment.  The trick is to be focused on awareness not the movements of the limited mind (thoughts).  One doesn't achieve the discipline required to control the content of what is entertained in the mind by wishing it so.

Re: Non-Duality/Oneness is an Ego Game

Hey Rico!

As usual you rail against any number of spiritual disciplines without, I would wager, any real first hand knowledge of any these paths.

Hmmm….”any real first hand knowledge”? I 'm certainly interested in what that could mean? Do you mean that I may have not read the texts? Or studied under the teachers? “As usual” ? I've been commenting in this forum for over a year. Have you made some sort of psychoanalytic study of my commenting patterns?

If you spent any time actually pursuing any of these paths you might be surprised where they lead.

Well, geez, now you've made an assumption about what I may have, or have not, “pursued.” That would be disingenuous, since you have no idea what paths I have knowledge of and whether that knowledge is comprehensive or not. You may wish to retract that statement for lack of factual information. I will certainly accept your apology. LOL!

I will grant you that “surprise” is where it's at.  If by surprise you mean always seeing everything as new. 

I would suggest you read the prior blog post regarding “infinite surprise.” It is a theoretical perspective posited by James Carse in his book “Finite and Infinite Games.” In fact, I would suggest you read the book and make your own determination as to the validity if the concepts.

When one lives entirely focused on the Present Moment everything is eternally new.  Duality, oneness, enlightenment are all concepts, thoughts.  Expectations take one out of the moment. 

Agreed. My chief contention is that chosen paths as prescribed by various spiritual and religious disciplines or codifed ideolgies rely on expectation and even create specialized concepts such as enlightenment, realization, oneness, revelation, etc as reward for conformance to the ideological expectations. Institutional religion clearly follows such a pattern and many austere spiritual ideologies (and most eastern philosophies) follow in those footsteps. Of course, those whose thinking is allied with those ideologies would deny that.

The trick is to be focused on awareness not the movements of the limited mind (thoughts).  One doesn't achieve the discipline required to control the content of what is entertained in the mind by wishing it so.

And so it seems that you support the same 'escape the mind' ideology that have been perpetuated for centuries. Thoughts are bad, thus even 'good' thoughts must be erased. Running from the mind has not served to even minimize suffering except for a select few or “master teachers.' I'm always quick to spot those who aspire to such titles and the internet is swarming with the devout.
Unfortunately, this smacks of the inauthentic to those 'everyday' folks who tend to employ very loving/compassionate and thus, useful thoughts in their daily living. I am not so interested in the austere, esoteric enlightenment of the ancients, which you seem to prescribe to, but I am more interested in the enlightenment of the common man.
Ah, but I see you have employed the terms “achieve,” “discipline” and mind “control” (also “trick”), Thus we have division between those who know the “trick” and those who do not and have yet to learn. Notice the inequality.

I would suggest that you read Freud's presentation of egoic “defense mechanisms” and how various mechanisms are used to avoid uncomfortable aspects of physical reality. I propose that those same egoic mechanisms are used to avoid the deeper reality. And those mechanisms require “discipline” in order to fully master.

Surrender your ideas regarding what you think “it” might be and prepare yourself for surprise.

Peace Angel,

mikeS

Re: Non-Duality/Oneness is an Ego Game

any thoughts on this:

i once read a comment that went something like: beware of knowers.
i thought that was pretty cool.  then- i wondered.  is this not the statement of a knower?

teachers- i dunno what constitutes a teacher, really.  seems pretty different for every person.  i read “the winter of our discontent” by john steinbeck and came away from it with a better understanding of something of value to me.  it could be argued that the process of reading merely uncovered what i already understood- but then i could merely define a teacher as something that helps me uncover my own understanding.

i like teachers- and books.  i like them a lot- although i get the feeling that most of the time they don't mean to me what they meant to the authors.  like the bible.  i like the christian bible's stories.  i dunno how everyone else understands them- but they mean something interesting to me which provides “uncovering”.  for me, they are allegorical. 

it seems to me that there are patterns in the universe- though maybe not absolute ones.  haven't come across any absolutes yet, myself.  one pattern is the distribution of heat from point source.  there is an equation which describes this transfer of energy and it bears a striking resemblence to the equations describing gravity, magnetic field strength and light distribution.  nothing special.  similar things happen in stories.  a story about a dog who goes on a walk creates a pattern- and that pattern can be extremely similar to another story's pattern.  perhaps the story about how a person was hurt badly and so hurt others until she broke down and went on an inward journey.  that's what i mean by allegory- the intentional or non-intentional description of multiple situations by a single story or equation.

teachers, books, sutras and whatnot have made use of these for thousands of years.  these allegorical stories are encoded in myths, legends, and novels.  personally, i rate “the never ending story” as a much more useful allegory than i do the bible- but then again, it's a bit more updated, perhaps.  and that's certainly just my perspective.

the allegories are perhaps not true.  perhaps they are- if i say that they are useless and false then i become a knower and so restrict what i am aware of in the universe.  but their use does not depend on their truth.  that's why i keep saying, “it seems to me…” rather than, “this is this and that is that and this is true and this is false.”  that does not seem to be my way.

so, teachers and scriptures have a place for those who desire to give them a place and listen to what they may say.  and for those who reject scriptures and teachers, well.  that's great too!  there's plenty of learning material right there in everyday life- even if scriptures are a part of everyday life.  no big deal.

back to dualism and oneness. 

it seems to me that most arguments regarding duality and oneness (or anything for that matter) are pretty dual.  we gotta make words to talk about em after all.

what if there is an entirely different way to look at this problem in which the problem of duality and oneness does not even appear?  what if there are no distinct entities whatsoever?  i'm not saying that it's the case.  just what if?  if there are no distinct boundaries between any objects and subjects, how can there be either oneness or duality?  take for instance two scenarios:

first- light leaves the sun, impacts a tree leaf.  some of the light is absorbed, some reflected and some new light is released by the leaf.  this light moves from the leaf to my eye, flips through a lense and impacts my retina.  many thousands of electrical and chemical signals are generated by the cells in my retina which move along optical nerves through the thalmus of the brain and eventually registers on my neural network as a “green leaf”.  now.  where does the leaf begin and i end?  if i am not the light entering my eye, am i also not the signal through my brain which is changing my very brain chemistry?  who am i?  who is the tree?

second: a guy in traffic cuts me off because he is angry and not paying attention.  so i get angry and flip him off.  later that evening, i am short with my friend over a discussion and she goes home feeling sad.  who is angry?  if my actions and behaviours are so influenced by another's state and actions… then am i not anger itself merely moving through receptacle bodies like a signal moves through the brain?  or am i a register empty of any real self except its contents?  ruh roh.

to challenge the idea of actual duality is very difficult, i think.  if there is no duality, then it's entirely possible that we have no souls or that our souls are very different than we like to think.  we may have no free-will!  we might be nothing but ether!  so we'd rather, i guess, remain in our subjective cages and pretend that there really is a separation between stuff.  it's easier.

there's a great story about this (allegory).  a dude was walking down the street when he came upon a couple demons about to devour a dead man's corpse.  one demon grapped the dude and ripped his arm off to eat it.  the other demon insisted this was rude and replaced the dude's arm with one from the corpse.  the mean demon took the dude's leg, then.  so the other demon replaced that too.  on it went until the dude was entirely comprised of the corpse!  he was a little confused.

then there is the idea of social-programming.  it seems to me that there are instincts- such as territorialism, pack-togetherness, etc.  there is also a mechanism by which people are imprinted upon by their parents and environment.  generally, bad kids ain't born bad.  it is a generalism, but as such it describes something interesting.  people do not act often out of an accurate and interested analysis of their present environments.  they tend to act on what they have been imprinted to do.  vote republican.  eat sushi.  look down on lazy people.  sometimes the imprinting is opposite of the environment (had a mean dad so now im a pushover) and sometimes similar (dad beat me, now im angry and beat others).  but imprinting happens.

what if dualism and oneness are similar?  perhaps they are merely either conditioned or imprinted concepts.  perhaps if they are seen through and carefully faded a bit- some other interesting and more subtle stuff is underneathe?

just ideas.

i am pretty sure that duality/oneness arguments rely on different definitions and perceptions that cannot be rationally argued because the axioms or assumptions about the universe are unsame.  which is to say- if you see a green light and say go but i see a red light and say stop… we can argue all day about what best course of action to take and never resolve the problem because we have sincerely different assumptions about reality.  i that the light is red and you that the light is green.

just some intersting thoughts. 

Re: Non-Duality/Oneness is an Ego Game

Hey mikeS,

I only read your opening post; didn't have time to look at any of the responses so far, so forgive me if I repeat others here…

You're 100% right when you state that there is no such thing a a concept of oneness - but that has nothing to do with oneness or non-duality…

Frans

Re: Non-Duality/Oneness is an Ego Game

I've been watching this thread.  I was resisting giving any comments because I knew the predictable discussion that would follow.  I commend you Mike for your efforts, but I'm not sure where this discussion can go.  Obviously, you realized you were posting this thread in a group filled with people who would mostly disagree with you.

I've more or less read every comment in this thread, but not very carefully.  My position is mostly as a disinterested observer.  Partly, I seem to agree with the gist of your view and what is the fun in me simply agreeing. 

I've thought along these same lines before.  I've studied about nondualism and I've had my various spiritual practices over the years.  I intimately understand the attraction of believing in the nondual, but it ultimately doesn't satisfy me either intellectually or experientially.  I won't make any argument for or against nonduality… for, as you point out, it doesn't have a rational leg to stand on.  But that is besides the point.  You either believe in it or not… no different than God or any other metaphysical claim.

Of course, some people are making their claims based on their personal experiences.  However, that can mean nothing to anyone else.  The holy texts are pretty vague and abstract in their explanations of nondualism.  I get the sense that, like God, nondualism can mean many things to many people. 

There is no one True Oneness…. or, if there is, we can't know that we know it.  We only know our own experience.  To know that nondualism is true, we'd have to know everyone else's experience besides.   The world is immense.  We simply don't know what exists outside of our present experience.  Our experience even changes from moment to moment.  Atheists become believers and believers become atheists.  It happens all of the time.  Nobody knows what might make sense to them a year from now.  We're slaves to our experience.

Language (and probably any form of communication) is dualistic and so any claim about nondualism is inherently dualistic.  Dualism isn't simply a misperception of true reality.  Dualism is built into our system.  Dualism is “natural”, the way the world is.  Then again, nondualism could hypothetically include nondualism, but that is a hypothesis that can't be proven (except maybe to oneself).  If nondualism is true, then oddly it seems we are all each individually trapped in our personal experience of nondualism.

The desire for transcendent experience apparently is universal in the sense that its at least a collective desire of the species.  I don't know if there is a God part of the brain, but we do seem prone to seeking that which is beyond our “normal” experience.  I would point towards archetypes except this really doesn't answer the question of what nondualism may be.

I have had experiences that could be interpreted as nondualism or God or any number of things.  For whatever reason, I've always been reluctant to give them theological labels.  They're just experiences.  To me, making claims of nondualism based on my personal experiences would feel unhelpful and even a bit dishonest.  I really don't know what those experiences are.  My only claim is ignorance.

I liked what you said in this following quote, Mike:

My chief contention is that chosen paths as prescribed by various spiritual and religious disciplines or codifed ideolgies rely on expectation and even create specialized concepts such as enlightenment, realization, oneness, revelation, etc as reward for conformance to the ideological expectations.

I've noticed this many times amongst the religiously-oriented.  I don't know what percentage of religious folk might apply to, but it seems pretty common to me.  And it has nothing to do with people being simpleminded in their obedience.  One of my favorite writers about nondualism is Marty Glass.  I just so happened to be rereading one of his books tonight and he falls into this trap.  He specifically warns against the dangers of non-believers because they might make you think outside of the proscibed box.  It irritated me to see him saying this… to say the least.

There are practical reasons for traditional disciplines and codifications.  They do work towards their intended goal(s).  What is to be questioned isn't their effectiveness, but their worthiness.  With such ideological self-discipline and social control, is it spiritual truth that is found or some form of hypnosis?  Mystical states and trance states aren't easily distinguished… if they can be distinguished at all. 

It really isn't important per se.  Even if all that one achieves is a trance, there is nothing wrong with achieving a happy trance.  If it feels real to you, then its real enough for all practical purposes.

Re: Non-Duality/Oneness is an Ego Game

Good morning, ricosoma, Mike, davie, Frans, and Marmalade.

ricosoma:

I will grant you that “surprise” is where it's at.  If by surprise you mean always seeing everything as new.  When one lives entirely focused on the Present Moment everything is eternally new.  Duality, oneness, enlightenment are all concepts, thoughts.  Expectations take one out of the moment.  The trick is to be focused on awareness not the movements of the limited mind (thoughts).  One doesn't achieve the discipline required to control the content of what is entertained in the mind by wishing it so.

That's for sure. After a very bad night of still being off my sleep schedule thanks to jet-lag, I am very aware of how undisciplined my mind is. How very challenging it is to live wholly in the Now, focused on awareness not thoughts and yet how rewarding, as we see from beloved siafu's meditative poems (today's was especially glorious, I thought).

Mike:

Thoughts are bad, thus even 'good' thoughts must be erased.

Perhaps I'm mistaken, but that's not how I understand the quest to stay engaged in the Now. It seems to me to try to get away from these constant judgments we are making about our thoughts - this one is good, this is bad, this is horrible… and the tendency to be run by our thoughts, driven along as by a storm at our heels.

davie:

i once read a comment that went something like: beware of knowers.
i thought that was pretty cool.  then- i wondered.  is this not the statement of a knower?

This post is the epitomy of what I enjoy about your contributions to our discussions here - the way you stay open, and share deeply and honestly without undue attachment to your views.

Teachers, books, life experience - surely they must all convey somewhat different things to each of us, otherwise we would not have all these different interpretations and perspectives. And yet are there  convergences too, so that many see something very similar in a poem or a spiritual text?

any thoughts on this:

i once read a comment that went something like: beware of knowers.
i thought that was pretty cool.  then- i wondered.  is this not the statement of a knower?

teachers- i dunno what constitutes a teacher, really.  seems pretty different for every person.  i read “the winter of our discontent” by john steinbeck and came away from it with a better understanding of something of value to me.  it could be argued that the process of reading merely uncovered what i already understood- but then i could merely define a teacher as something that helps me uncover my own understanding.

i like teachers- and books.  i like them a lot- although i get the feeling that most of the time they don't mean to me what they meant to the authors.  like the bible.  i like the christian bible's stories.  i dunno how everyone else understands them- but they mean something interesting to me which provides “uncovering”.  for me, they are allegorical. 

it seems to me that there are patterns in the universe- though maybe not absolute ones.  haven't come across any absolutes yet, myself.  one pattern is the distribution of heat from point source.  there is an equation which describes this transfer of energy and it bears a striking resemblence to the equations describing gravity, magnetic field strength and light distribution.  nothing special.  similar things happen in stories.  a story about a dog who goes on a walk creates a pattern- and that pattern can be extremely similar to another story's pattern.  perhaps the story about how a person was hurt badly and so hurt others until she broke down and went on an inward journey.  that's what i mean by allegory- the intentional or non-intentional description of multiple situations by a single story or equation.

teachers, books, sutras and whatnot have made use of these for thousands of years.  these allegorical stories are encoded in myths, legends, and novels.  personally, i rate “the never ending story” as a much more useful allegory than i do the bible- but then again, it's a bit more updated, perhaps.  and that's certainly just my perspective.

the allegories are perhaps not true.  perhaps they are- if i say that they are useless and false then i become a knower and so restrict what i am aware of in the universe.  but their use does not depend on their truth.  that's why i keep saying, “it seems to me…” rather than, “this is this and that is that and this is true and this is false.”  that does not seem to be my way.

so, teachers and scriptures have a place for those who desire to give them a place and listen to what they may say.  and for those who reject scriptures and teachers, well.  that's great too!  there's plenty of learning material right there in everyday life- even if scriptures are a part of everyday life.  no big deal.

back to dualism and oneness. 

it seems to me that most arguments regarding duality and oneness (or anything for that matter) are pretty dual.  we gotta make words to talk about em after all.

what if there is an entirely different way to look at this problem in which the problem of duality and oneness does not even appear?  what if there are no distinct entities whatsoever?  i'm not saying that it's the case.  just what if?  if there are no distinct boundaries between any objects and subjects, how can there be either oneness or duality?  take for instance two scenarios:

In my mind's eye, I see the light, unbroken as it flows from sun to leaf to retina to “green leaf” in your mind. Yes. And the way anger (or joy or love) moves. Vivid ways of trying to avoid the circularities of arguing about duality and oneness.

And the ideas about conditioning… very interesting too - where do they lead us?

Marmalade:

Good to have you drop by, especially to see that the difficulties you have been having with comments and messages here with your browsers did not prevent you from sending the post.
 
There are practical reasons for traditional disciplines and codifications.  They do work towards their intended goal(s).  What is to be questioned isn't their effectiveness, but their worthiness.  With such ideological self-discipline and social control, is it spiritual truth that is found or some form of hypnosis?  Mystical states and trance states aren't easily distinguished… if they can be distinguished at all. 

It really isn't important per se.  Even if all that one achieves is a trance, there is nothing wrong with achieving a happy trance.  If it feels real to you, then its real enough for all practical purposes.

I don't know. I hear that it may not be important to you, in your wonderful ability not to cling to belief, but I think for most believers it is very important really there is a reality beyond the practice, otherwise, it's just self-deception, a waste of time. It's a scary thought that what you have devoted your life to is just a lie. But with belief, there is always that risk. All part of being a human, since our life is made up of beliefs and perceptions, though we long for the solidity of “facts”.

Love and light to you all,

Nicole

Re: Non-Duality/Oneness is an Ego Game

Good mornin!

It's snowing- big and wet flakes.  Right gorgeous out.  And chilly out here on the norcal coast.

Rereading what I wrote the other day, I feel like I missed the mark a lot.  But hey, you guys forgive me, right?

I really do appreciate Mike's viewpoint here and that didn't really come through.  If I have a base philosophy it's something like, “Make no solid faith; accept all.”  Which is sorta like believing nothing (but not so rough).  And that really ties in with what Marmalade said.  Thanks Marmalade.  (Gosh, now I want some marmalade!)  Not that faith or thoughts are good/bad.  Just I prefer not to make static faith and prefer to not identify my thoughts as my self.  (or anything else for that matter.)

And thanks Nicole for your neat words: I like “convergences”.  I feel so- that there are overlaps in understanding even in the abstract.  I used to get a lot of feedback on some of my poems- and it was fascinating how different people viewed the poems.  It meant something very different for each person.  Yet each had caught the underlying pattern.  Different interpretations on similar story-lines.  Interesting.

And I like ricosoma's approach also.  Especially the non-discipline.  (I put those words in your mouth sorta.)  It feels like the mind's contents are the mind's contents.  I can easily clear the mind of thoughts and feelings, but what then?  I still am, but what am I?  Clearing the mind is maybe good practice (makes me happy anyway)- but to place intrinsic value on it?

To value the clear-mind in oneself is to value it in others.  Someone who desires their mind to be empty will think that it is best for others as well.  Someone who accepts their mind's contents will accept the contents of other people's minds.  To reject contents is to enforce them- in others as well as self.  To accept contents is to transform them- also in others as well as self.

At least, I think so!  Proof is in the experiential puddin, eh?

Anyway, you guys are awesome.  Anyone gots snowshoes?

Re: Non-Duality/Oneness is an Ego Game

I don't know. I hear that it may not be important to you, in your wonderful ability not to cling to belief, but I think for most believers it is very important really there is a reality beyond the practice, otherwise, it's just self-deception, a waste of time. It's a scary thought that what you have devoted your life to is just a lie. But with belief, there is always that risk. All part of being a human, since our life is made up of beliefs and perceptions, though we long for the solidity of “facts”.

Hello Nicole,

I was leaning more to the side of being critical because I was following off of Mike's position.  As you know, I'm really more agnostic.  At its best, agnosticism means remaining open rather than being dismissive.  I didn't intend to dismiss spiritual practice.

Maybe a better way of saying it is to use the term “reality tunnel'.  Maybe we're all stuck in our respective reality tunnels.  Obviously, some reality tunnels do seem better than others… or at least they're more pleasant.  Being stuck in the nondual or God reality tunnel does have its advantages.  Calling it a happy trance is too much of a simplification.

BTW I don't believe that I cling to belief any less than anyone else.  Its just that I'm always questioning, wondering, and looking at the other side of things.  From a spiritual perspective, someone might say my mind is overactive and undisciplined.  That is fine.  Its the way my mind has always been and I normally feel little desire to try to make it be otherwise.

As a general principle, I do believe in something like God/nondual.  My desire to believe is strong, but its just that my desire to question is equally strong.  Thinking objectively about it, I don't see it as any merit on my part.  Its simply the way I am… and others are the way they are.

If someone believes in some metaphysical Truth, Reality, or Beingness… then it really doesn't matter what I believe.  If someone is drawn towards discipline, then I hope it works out for them.  You have to go for whatever compels you most deeply.  Of course, none of its rational.  Reality itself isn't rational.

I hear what you're saying, Nicole.  It scares me too to consider how little I'm capable of knowing.  However, I wonder if it matters.  In a sense, any position that one takes will be ultimately wrong.  You just have to pick your part and play the game… infinite or finite.

To make one last comment about my criticalness.  Its partly a reaction.  Trust me, I've tried my darned best to cling to all kinds of beliefs, but they just wouldn't stick.  I wish I had a belief to cling to… or maybe just a happier and easier belief to cling to.  My questioning comes from a deep sadness.  I completely understand and empathize with the desire to believe… in something, anything.  I truly believe that we humans are literally incapable of living without belief.

There are several techniques one can use to try to not get too stuck in a single reality tunnel… if that is one's desire. 

You can hold your beliefs lightly so that they can be easily let go.  Or you can try the opposite.  Take on a belief completely and don't be afraid to test its validity, follow it to its final conclusion… and then step away from it if it proves unworthy or unhelpful. 

The next two techniques are favorites of mine.  You can jump around between beliefs taking them as perspectives, and reinterpret your monkey mind as actually an idealized state of being. lol  Or you can go the way of the Walt Whitman quote: “Do I contradict myself? Very well, then, I contradict myself. I am large, I contain multitudes.”  I know that I contradict myself all of the time… despite my wish to be consistent.

Let me end with the clear statement of the fact that I know nothing.  Anything I say should have a disclaimer.  My statements are subjective opinions loosely inspired by confused experiences and psychological defenses.  Any resemblance they have to reality is incidental.  These opinions should be taken only for entertainment purposes.  If you notice any side effects, seek immediate medical attention.  No animals were harmed in the making of these statements.  :)

Marmalade

Re: Non-Duality/Oneness is an Ego Game

Marmalade,

I was resisting giving any comments because I knew the predictable discussion that would follow.  I commend you Mike for your efforts, but I'm not sure where this discussion can go.  Obviously, you realized you were posting this thread in a group filled with people who would mostly disagree with you.

Yes, I predicted the general direction of the discussion as well. However, does there need to be a agreeable conclusion or any conclusion whatsoever? Does the mind demand answers so much so that continued seemingly infinite questioning impedes that goal and thereby creates psychemotional distress? Does our questioning need “go” anywhere?

Can we accept that there are no answers only questions and it is incumbent upon us to ask the questions and, in fact, that may be our only purpose?

Could it be that once you accept or agree on an answer you have impeded your purpose which essentially requires developing more questions?

The drive-to-question seems inherently correlated with our drive to learn and know. Can we ever be comfortable not knowing? I recognize that in the past when i came upon an agreeable conclusion, I immediately felt an 'aha' sense of relief only to have that later expunged leading to a sense of discouragment. Now I tend to have rejection wrapped into my acceptance and i move on with ever greater comfort in the idea that there is no end-point. No conclusion since the question creates.

Maybe learning is an infinite process with no end. Maybe we can not know god, or anything for that matter, since our purpose is to learn of god and that learning has NO end. You will always learn of truth, since truth has no conclusion, you cannot ever 'know' infinite truth.

There is no end, only means to an end. If learning is the point then possibly creativity never ceases but goes on and on ad infinitum. If this be the case then disagreement and nonacceptance may be the driving force of our only purpose. Therefore, could it be a consciousness in conflict is an evolving consciousness and evolution cannot end? Does acceptance of some theory as truth merely delay evolution?

You can never know god, you can only ever know learning of god.

Therefore, asking questions or stating propositions that are disagreeable conforms to learning. The fact is, I could just as easily defend non-dualism and oneness as negate it and many of my older comments on the threads of this same topic did just that. Maybe the rules of the game should be changed since it is infinite and there is no finite resolution since that would end the game. If Divine Mind is infinite, who are we to decide we KNOW what cannot ever be known since the learning has to continue and can never end only be delayed by acceptance.
(however, I don't agree that Divine Mind is infinite, LOL)

I don't know, I'm just saying…and saying…and saying…
mikeS

Re: Non-Duality/Oneness is an Ego Game

questioning is valuable …perhaps more so than choosing  a view(then becoming attached to) various spiritual/ intellectual/ cultural/ societal/ religious  answers….
however, this (choosing a view) also seems inevitable…. any time anything is communicated through language.
… its…  just …. what …. us …. egos …. do ….
naked nonduality/oneness may not be an ego game … but as soon as a concept is attached  - it is.
and a concept is always attached.

Re: Non-Duality/Oneness is an Ego Game

Oh, Mike… yeah, yeah, yeah…

As for the predictability of discussions, its the fate of human relationships.  We humans tend to go around and around in the same old grooves.  We could use some of that surprise you spoke of.

Questions are great, but answers are inevitable.  Fortunately, there is no answer that doesn't lead to more questions.  The questions will always win.  I hope my last words before I die will be a question.  Wouldn't that be awesome!  Surrounded by loved ones hoping for some endearing words of wisdom or visions of angels, but all they'll get is a question… and then they'll be forced to think about that question for the rest of their lives.

On another note, I could and have defended nondualism.  Its a very compelling thought.  Its a paradox which is neither question nor answer.  But it can be fun trying to make it fit the question/answer format.  I find it strange that nondualism is often idealized by intellectual-leaning types, but it doesn't seem any more intellectual a concept than God.  Nondualism appears very rational at first glance, but it simply falls apart when analyzed even slightly.  The defense of nondualism is elsewhere.  I take nondualism to be one of those great non-answer answers… something like the finger pointing at the moon if you took away the finger and the moon.  :)

Marmalade

Re: Non-Duality/Oneness is an Ego Game

Re: Non-Duality/Oneness is an Ego Game

Hi All
I was struck by this topic. In the time I took to join this pod I paused long enough from my mission of expression to remember something else happening here.
Everything arises here in what is. All concepts and experiences. The egoic mind loves a mission it cant help it. The tricky little mind loves to go to town on the Spiritual quest and can get stuck in trying to maintain an affair with an old love..the past. Even a moment is too much effort to maintain. Its a good thing we dont have to really do it we just think we do. No holding onto past, future or present. It leaves nothing else to do but live with whatever and however life is happening. But ego mind likes to wrap aroudn this also and make it into a mission. This is what Im hearing you say.
Does mind serve what is happening or does what is happening serve the mind?
maya

Re: Non-Duality/Oneness is an Ego Game

Hey Mike

You have my apologies if you were offended by my comments. LOLROTF

Earlier today I was well into a point by point rebuttal but my generator went done (we have been without power since Thursday night) and I lost it all.  So I'll give you the abbreviated version since I'm now at my sister's house, pizza is on the way and the Pats/Raiders game is starting soon. 

I based my “wager” on what I read in your postings.  I don't know you personally so I have no idea what your eperience is with any philosophy.  By real first hand knowledge I meant the knowledge that is aquired after diligently pursuing a path for many years.  Our society (Americans) is too enamored with the instant gratification whether it's fast food or instant “enlightenment”.  Many Eastern cultures don't place much value on anything that doesn't take considerable time and effort to master.

I read you earlier blog entry.  It seems Mr Carse has some expectations of his own.  You might be interested in Ken Wilbur's article in Enlightenment Now magazine 
http://www.enlightennext.org/magazine/j12/wilber.asp?ifr=hp-edt
for an interesting perspective on the role and dynamics of the various functions of religion.  

You completely miss the focus of the approach to the mind that I have been trying to communicate.  I never said thought was bad and that all thought needs to be erased.  What I've been saying is that slavishly entertaining the habitual thoughts that cause one grief is undesirable.  Doing so perpetuates disharmony and pain in oneself and the world.  Loving compassionate thoughts are precisely the thoughts that should be entertained.   Interacting with the world requires thought.  Most actions have their origin in thought.  By focusing on the space between 2 thoughts becoming familiar with this space one gains the  perspective needed to begin to control the movements of the mind.  This enables one to entertain positive uplifting thoughts instead of mechanically thinking about the negative.  You don't have to be a Master to apply this approach.  Anyone can do it in the moment.

As far as I know controlling what one thinks about is the only way to alleviate suffering on an individual and societal level.  If you know of another way I'd be interested in hearing about it.  This knowledge while not common knowledge is available to anyone who is ready to hear it.  I have been trying to make as many as possible aware of it.  Too often one's preconceptions get in the way of hearing it.

Your egalitarian ideals are comendable but it seems to me that it's more of a matter of being open to what's available than keeping a secret from the masses. 

Ideas about IT whatever they are miss the mark.  It cannot be touched by thought.  It can only be experienced. 

I've rambled on too long.  The Pizza's getting cold and the game is about to start.  I'll leave you with a quote.  I'm not quite sure about it's attribution.  But I know it's from a practioner of one of those austere Eastern philosphies.

“He who thinks he knows, knows not.”    (my emphasis)

 

Re: Non-Duality/Oneness is an Ego Game

Hello, davie, Marmalade, Mike, arpita, Maya, Eli and ricosoma,

davie:

I used to get a lot of feedback on some of my poems- and it was fascinating how different people viewed the poems.  It meant something very different for each person.  Yet each had caught the underlying pattern.  Different interpretations on similar story-lines.  Interesting.

Very! Lots of snow here too, no snowshoes but we can always ask Centria for hers.

Marmalade:

Well, apparently we are not all stuck in a given “reality tunnel”, since atheists can become theists and vice versa…

BTW I don't believe that I cling to belief any less than anyone else.  Its just that I'm always questioning, wondering, and looking at the other side of things.

Right, that's what I should have said :)

As a general principle, I do believe in something like God/nondual.  My desire to believe is strong, but its just that my desire to question is equally strong.  Thinking objectively about it, I don't see it as any merit on my part.  Its simply the way I am… and others are the way they are.

True!

Let me end with the clear statement of the fact that I know nothing.  Anything I say should have a disclaimer.  My statements are subjective opinions loosely inspired by confused experiences and psychological defenses.  Any resemblance they have to reality is incidental.  These opinions should be taken only for entertainment purposes.  If you notice any side effects, seek immediate medical attention.  No animals were harmed in the making of these statements.  :)

One of the things that is so terrific about this thread is how many such disclaimers there are… very inventive they are! :)

Questions are great, but answers are inevitable.  Fortunately, there is no answer that doesn't lead to more questions.  The questions will always win.  I hope my last words before I die will be a question.  Wouldn't that be awesome!  Surrounded by loved ones hoping for some endearing words of wisdom or visions of angels, but all they'll get is a question… and then they'll be forced to think about that question for the rest of their lives.

Hmm, I wonder what question you would choose :)

Mike:

The fact is, I could just as easily defend non-dualism and oneness as negate it and many of my older comments on the threads of this same topic did just that.

They did indeed. For many months you were one of our main proponent of non-dualism.

I don't know, I'm just saying…and saying…and saying…

See? Here's another disclaimer, the Mike disclaimer I have come to know and appreciate…

arpita:

however, this (choosing a view) also seems inevitable…. any time anything is communicated through language.
… its…  just …. what …. us …. egos …. do ….

In great detail and at great length… yes :)

Eli:

I was just thinking this week how I was missing your input here, it's good to see you. I think the wave/particleness of light is a great analogy too, now wasn't it Chuck who mentioned that a few threads back?

Maya:

Welcome to the discussion!

Does mind serve what is happening or does what is happening serve the mind?

Excellent question, to ask oneself at any point in the day, but especially in the middle of a discussion like this one.

ricosoma:

How was the pizza and the game?

Thanks for linking the Ken Wilber article, he's a hard guy to get away from around here, always seems to be popping up one way or another.

As far as I know controlling what one thinks about is the only way to alleviate suffering on an individual and societal level.

This is the crux, isn't it? How do we live whole and sane lives, how can we truly help others?

Love and light,

Nicole

Re: Non-Duality/Oneness is an Ego Game

Hi Nicole,
The pizza was Ok.  The game wasn't very entertaining.  While I always love to see the Pats win, there was no suspense they chrushed the Raiders.

As we become more and more Aware we become better instruments for service.

Re: Non-Duality/Oneness is an Ego Game

Well, at least they won, eh? :)

Becoming more Aware is certainly vital, thank you for that.

Love,

Nicole

Re: Non-Duality/Oneness is an Ego Game

: )

Re: Non-Duality/Oneness is an Ego Game

Hey Alan, being contentious is my job.  lol

If nonduality exists, then its outside of feelings as well.  There is no escape.  If oneness exists, it exists where there is no one thinking or feeling or anything else.  Oneness of all things is no-thing.  Feeling-based experience is just another place people go seeking after.  There is no point. 

Planning?  Planning to break out of the recursive paradigm?  Ha!  God loves the plans that humans make because it gives him something to laugh about.  :))

Marm

Re: Non-Duality/Oneness is an Ego Game

Why is it a question of whether oneness exists or doesn't exist? Why is it either/or? Why need it be experienced or not experienced? Isn't this dualistic in nature?

Why can't it be a game? What is inherently wrong with playing games? Games are fun and you needn't take them so damn serious.

Why not include the “recursive paradigm” rather than seek to break out? I mean, if it's all ONE, what we are breaking with asserts a TWO. But that's OK, too.

The initial post was not toward denying non-duality or oneness, but simply questioning the rules of the game. Which, it seems, many take very seriously.

Peace Angels : )
mikeS

Re: Non-Duality/Oneness is an Ego Game

Hi Mike,

Seriousness is good, too, isn't it? It's all good…

Love,

Nicole

Re: Non-Duality/Oneness is an Ego Game

Hi Alan,

I like that - I really do.

Thanks,
Frans

Re: Non-Duality/Oneness is an Ego Game

: )

Re: Non-Duality/Oneness is an Ego Game

Alan, I really don't care what you believe as its not my place to judge.  Our beliefs have nothing to do with rationality.  You can choose to label as non-dual any experience you so desire.  It doesn't change anything.  The world is just what it is, experience is just experience… no matter what labels and beliefs you or I prefer.

The subject matter isn't directly about semantics, but as we're communicating through language it is a matter of semantics.  Maybe you imply positivity with every term you use whatever that may mean.  I simply try to be clear and accurate, to be true to my personal experiences and understandings… positive, negative, and neutral.  My only contention is in using language well.  Until we find some other way of communicating, I shall remain contentious about the relationship between language and reality.

I'm not sure of anything.  That is my whole point.  As a point of fact, I was arguing against the certainty of others.  If you or anyone else feels certain about non-dualism, then that is fine.  Anyone's certainty is a personal issue… until they try to convince others of it.  I have my certainties based on my own experiences, but non-dualism isn't one of them… which isn't to say that I don't use the term on occasion to describe some of my experiences.

You seem to be making some assumptions about me, about this pod, and about Gaia in general.  I'm here because I'm not sure and that probably applies to many others as well.  Yes, we can't be sure of what we don't experience, but we also can't be sure of what we experience.  In this light, I agree with you when you wrote: all you can say is “I've experienced it.”  But the question is… experienced what?

To me, it isn't about saying any particular thing is impossible.  Rather, I don't presently feel a desire to limit myself to one possibility (ie non-duality) in this particular circumstance.  Besides, I've never claimed to lack a desire to believe.

Ohhh…. anyways, I was just joking around earlier.  I have little desire to argue about it.  Its not an pressing issue for me at the moment.  Non-duality, God, or whatever will do fine without me believing in it or worrying about it.

If you want to simply share experiences instead of having a discussion, then that would be alright by me…. but that would be an entirely different thread than this one has been so far.  I'm not trying to argue for or against anything in particular.  I've had my “spiritual” experiences, and I'm not shy about sharing them. 

I often think of myself in spiritual terms, but those terms are always changing as my experience of life itself changes.  Non-dualism isn't a term that does much for me at the moment.  Even though it has its uses, it can feel a bit vague in how it gets thrown around in spiritual discussions.  It can mean almost anything to anyone.  As such, its meaningless to me unless someone offers the personal context of their own life.  The problem is that its easy to fall into the trap of making claims beyond one's own direct experience, and that is when arguments start.

I hope that clarifies at least my own view.

Marm

Re: Non-Duality/Oneness is an Ego Game

BTW, Alan, I would think you might find it interesting the diversity of reasons that bring people to Gaia.  Gaia wasn't created simply as a haven for spiritual believers.  But you should know that as you've been a member for some years now.

Maybe you don't know my reasons.  If you'd like to discover what brings a person like me to Gaia, then you might enjoy a series of blogs I wrote about the New Age.  They were also posted here in this pod.  I was raised in a New Agey church and so all of this kind of thing is embedded in my psyche.  I sometimes wish it weren't so, but I can't change how I was raised.

Trust me, I question why I'm Gaia all of the time.  Actually, I question about everything all of the time.  The reason I'm in a pod about God is because I'm a weak agnostic and not an atheist.  Even though I don't absolutely “believe” in God, I “think” about God constantly.  I even pray although I don't know what I'm praying to.  As far as I can tell, God doesn't require belief.  I distinguish between faith and belief and sometimes they feel like polar opposites to me.

Marm

Re: Non-Duality/Oneness is an Ego Game

Alan,

(this is a general question as well- if as some here suggest the current human experience is the limit to possible experiences, what's the point of posting on gaia?  aren't you wasting your time?)

I'm certainly not saying there is a “limit to possible experiences” but you may be inadvertently limiting experience to your concept of “oneness” and maybe wasting your time (although I look forward to your defense of your concepts since it does make for rewarding discussion)   : )
However, I would hope that your “wasting your time” comment is not an attempt to limit the scope of where we can go with our discussions.

Actually, when I wrote this in my initial post: “To be absolute truth it must be immediately accessible always, therefore, there could have never been a time when we were NOT experiencing non-dualistic oneness without the limits of space/time (which is dualism).”  I thought folks would run with that and expand on it since essentially I am saying were are non-dual now and there could never have been a time when we weren't. However, you seem to have read this has an indictment on your theory of non-dualism or oneness (I tend to like non-dualism as a descriptor since “oneness” is becoming more a platitude lately).

Therefore, the next question would be if one asserts an 'experience' of non-dualism, but another remains grounded in the dual, then how is that indicative of “oneness”? How would indviduals experiencing “oneness” be indicative of total unity if others experience duality?

You seem also to be very reliant on the reports of others who have been held in high regard as proof that your concept is real since “ghandi?  jesus?  lao-tzu?  buddha?” assert non-duality. I would ask in what way have these individuals changed the world? have they created greater “oneness” and therefore, engendered world peace? Seem not to be the case, at least so far.

I would hope that folks continue to present whatever ideas or theories they choose within the God Pod and that they not feel they are wasting time since that would tend to limit the directions we can go in the learning curve we are all a part of.

Peace Angels,

mikeS

Re: Non-Duality/Oneness is an Ego Game

Dear Mike, from the recent discussions and some wonderful participants, familiar and new, I'd say we are doing well in our learning curve here, wouldn't you?

Love,

Nicole

Re: Non-Duality/Oneness is an Ego Game

If we believe that oneness isn't possible for humans, maybe we've defined “human” wrongly…

Frans

Re: Non-Duality/Oneness is an Ego Game

Hi Frans,

If we believe that oneness isn't possible for humans, maybe we've defined “human” wrongly…

I like this!

Love,

Nicole

Re: Non-Duality/Oneness is an Ego Game

Mike, perhaps think of it as 'not duality' insteady of non-duality. So let's take something not to extreme like S&M sex. Some people will think, 'oh that's bad'. Some others will think, 'oh that's good'. In reality it is neither good nor bad. It is for awhile (20 minutes to hours or days) then it is not. Good and bad are interpretations added to experience. The experience itself is beyond those interpretations.

Or let's say someone says, 'I just hate it when it rains it ruins my hairdo'. But a farmer says, 'I love it when it rains'. The experience of the rain is beyond love and hate or prior to it if you will. If it is raining, get a raincoat or take a shower in it or stay inside and talk to the kids.

peac e

Re: Non-Duality/Oneness is an Ego Game

Hey e - Your comment is perfect.  I usually think of non-duality as nothing more than 'not duality'.  Its not saying what is but just what isn't…. or maybe its not even saying that.  Its not denying duality outright.  The term can simply mean that something is always left out, an unknown factor(s).  Non-dualism isn't monism even though it often gets interpreted that way.

As I see it, non-dualism is one of those terms that is used because somethings can't be spoken about directly… and maybe not even experienced directly.  There is something about reality that always eludes anyone who tries to capture it… in belief, concept, emotion…

Being attached to monism is as problematic as being attached to dualism.  Flexibility of approach is maybe best… using all available tools… and modifying them to the particular situation.

I don't know what that means in practical terms.  I just think of it as keeping my mind open and curious… and maybe a little bit of wonder thrown in.  It seems a useful attitude to me in dealing with my life.  I don't try to stop myself from having opinions, but I do try to look outside of my opinions on occasion.

So, for me, non-duality just means that I don't know… because anything we cling easily takes on a dualistic slant.  Hey, if we just reinterpret non-dualism as a metaphysical version of weak agnosticism, then I'm all for it.

Marm

Re: Non-Duality/Oneness is an Ego Game

Hey Marm,

Your post was spot on. I agree on just about all points.
 
I don't know what that means in practical terms. 

For me, there is a lightness to most experience. When things get heavy and the subject starts to emerge to take control, there is an almost immediate smile at the folly of that.

peac e

Re: Non-Duality/Oneness is an Ego Game

Ahhh, yes… I'm glad you agree with my agreement with you.  :)

Saying I don't know seems reasonable.  I can't speak for others, but the one thing I know is that I know nothing for certain.  Besides, I don't see the use of denying one belief (dualism) just to put one”s preferred belief in its place (monism).  Then again, I suppose we humans are incapable of not believing in something.

For me, it comes down what has been helpful to me so far in life.  But what has been be helpful to others would be different.  As far as this discussion goes, I just thought important to distinguish between non-dualism and monism for the sake of clarity.

Lightness of experience… hmmm, I think i get what you mean.  I feel better when I take life less seriously.  For sure, the folly of we humans is often on my mind and it at times can bring a smile to my face.  lol

Marm

Re: Non-Duality/Oneness is an Ego Game

Ahhh, yes… I'm glad you agree with my agreement with you.  :)

:-) Well I was not explicit about the “rejection” of monism as non-duality in my first post, just wanted to say I was also in agreement with that as well. I think that is an important point in this non-duality game that often falls on deaf ears.

Saying I don't know seems reasonable.  I can't speak for others, but the one thing I know is that I know nothing for certain. 

Yes, the great doubt. For me as well, this has been important to come to an understanding of non-duality. The Zen folks are fond of saying non-knowing. What they mean of course is non-(dualistic) knowing. If we can begin to doubt the way things are, that is the way things (dualistically) appear, then a deeper knowing may appear of it's own volition having nothing to do with subject/object predicated knowing which if we are honest, 99.99% of all humanities knowledge is of this type. Hence the folly.

peac e

Re: Non-Duality/Oneness is an Ego Game

e, good to see you!  I was half-expecting you to show up in Lake Louise…

Nicely put, btw.

Frans

Re: Non-Duality/Oneness is an Ego Game

Hi everyone!

Re: Non-Duality/Oneness is an Ego Game

Greetings everyone!

I must say, great topic Mike S! If we all just agreed there wouldn’t be any reason for discussion right? :-)

Great posts there Alan, davie, Frans and e!

First of all, as ricorama mentions, duality, oneness and so forth are only concepts. So, that puts us back a little – unless of course we take this into consideration when discussing these things. I like to keep in mind that anything we express – in the form of language at least – about that which we call the universe will always be a theory, a mere description. “The grass is green” is a description. The grass is what it is. The word “Green” is what we call a sound coming from what we call the throat and so forth. All words are descriptions – not the thing in itself. This is a longer strand of definition, so I’m going to leave it here for now.

In my humble opinion…

Oneness is a reality. If we accept the premise that the universe is infinite, then there cannot any separation and thus everything is one. This premise is up for discussion, so if anyone doesn’t agree bring it on! ;)

Now, we see the world in separated parts, this is true. That’s the duality. What we call feminine and masculine, positive and negative, light and dark, warm and cold are aspects of that same thing. They appear to us as different – in contrast to each other – because if not, there would be “nothing”. By this “nothing” I mean no-thing. We see something, because of something else. There has to be something from which something else can be distinguished. It is Yin & Yang mate. Yin is recognized in force of Yang and Yang in force of Yin. They are opposites and complementary. That’s the world we perceive. It’s not that there is light and dark, there is only light (or dark) and the absence of light (or dark). Oneness has to manifest in the form of duality.

On this subject I recommend this site; http://www.chanceandchoice.com/ChanceandChoice/chapter5.html The whole site is great though.

Alright, since I haven’t read all of the posts yet, I’m going to stop here … And read the rest :-) Just had to throw this out there.

Oneness,
Evo

Ps. Mike! Oneness is my signature man, so you better have your arguments in order when criticizing it! ;-)

Re: Non-Duality/Oneness is an Ego Game

Evo! e! great to have you join the discussion!

Any further thoughts to share with us after reading more of it?

Peace,

Nicole

Re: Non-Duality/Oneness is an Ego Game

Ps. Mike! Oneness is my signature man, so you better have your arguments in order when criticizing it! ;-)

OK. Thanks for the invitation.

However, I do not see “argument” as “criticism,” even though others do and tend to get quite irascible and onery about my disagreement. I tend to see “contrarianism” (as one bright mind has described it) as catalyst toward advancing the thought through the exchange of ideas. The conceptualization of “oneness” tends to get normalized by the non-dualistic theoreticians and, in my humble opinion, this tends to create an immunity to advanced thinking around the concept of non-dual.
As I see it my arguments simply aid (personally speaking) in breaking free from the self-imposed conceptual parameters we all tend to become mired in and stuck with (although many refuse to budge even one iota from their conceptualizations). I enjoy bouncing around from perspective to perspective. There is an inherent freedom in that since I have no difficulty with being completely against the current and being lambasted for that. I agree that we will probably surrender all our concepts eventually and I imagine that to be the “awakening” the ancient masters spoke of.

First of all, as ricorama mentions, duality, oneness and so forth are only concepts.

Yes, of course you are right and this tends to be a discussion buster since obviously we cannot talk about what cannot be conceptualized. Case closed!
For me this is a bit old and tiresome and I no longer subscribe. Concept or thought has the unique ability to take us very far along the way and to simply discard it at this point seems a bit disingenuous. I would agree that concepts most likely will be discarded by encountering absolute “truth,” yet, I am not inclined to believe that one can think one's way out of thinking.
Case in point would be your next statement.

Oneness is a reality. If we accept the premise that the universe is infinite, then there cannot any separation and thus everything is one. This premise is up for discussion, so if anyone doesn't agree bring it on! ;)

But it is also not a reality since “reality” is a concept, same as “infinite” and “separation” and most importantly, “one.” I feel that there is a tendency for the “oneness” advocates to thereby negate the many. I find it interesting how diversity is conceptually abolished through this “oneness” seeking. In asserting your “oneness” could you be inadvertently nullifying the beauty and wonder found in a diverse world? Why such animosity toward the diverse, since most likely it would be through diversity that you will engage the non-dual?

That's the world we perceive. It's not that there is light and dark, there is only light (or dark) and the absence of light (or dark). Oneness has to manifest in the form of duality.

Presence and absence are dual. But if oneness manifests in “the form of duality” it is negated as oneness. To me, this still does not adequately hold the paradox and, as many say, the paradox cannot be resolved through conceptual descriptorss.
Now I understand that many will claim that I just don't get it and I humbly and with honor accept that indictment. In fact, I hope that I never 'get it' since I tend to believe it can never truly be learned. I sense that learning is an infinite process that does not lend itself to 'knowing.' I sometimes feel sorry for those who claim to 'know' and assert this knowledge as a finality to revel in. Can we find oneness in NOT knowing oneness and joyfully be one with that? Can we experience oneness in the 'NOT experiencing oneness'? Well, NOT according to the priests of oneness. In their church membership is demanded and all other be damned! LOL. (just kidding).

Wonderful ideas presented by all who participated in this provocative thread, since my point was only to provoke ideas.

Peace Angels : )

mikeS

Re: Non-Duality/Oneness is an Ego Game

mikeS,

It's a great thread with many ideas being discussed.  However, in the end oneness/non-duality/God can only be experienced and those who haven't experienced it will always deny “it” or defend “it” - depending on their point-of-view.  And of course they're all wrong, hehe.. :-)

Frans

Re: Non-Duality/Oneness is an Ego Game

So true,

I have had many experiences in the past, related to spiritual practices and not related. Could I have experienced this elusive “oneness” or do I experience it NOW? Possibly. But I'm hesitant to name it.
I am also hesitant to divide between those who have a particular experience they call oneness and those who don't. Obviously there can be no such division in theory. It seems there is always an underlying egoic subordination by those who claim some experience superior to duality. Notice the claim recently by one commenter who requested he hoped I would someday join them. I would only ask, but how can there be a division? What am i joining? : )

Just saying…

mikeS

Re: Non-Duality/Oneness is an Ego Game

Mike, Mike, Mike, are you provoking a discussion with no possible hope of a quorum again?

I'm glad you, like the rest of this 'reality', are just a projection of my consciousness.

Next thing you'll be asking Who made God? 

“Pure truth, like pure gold, has been found unfit for circulation, because men have discovered that it is far more convenient to adulterate the truth than to refine themselves. They will not advance their minds to the standard, so they lower the standard to their minds.” Caleb Colton (1780-1832)

It could be that, like me, your sole purpose in life is to serve as a warning to
others :-)

In peace, love and goodwill to all my imaginary friends

an eccentric Aussie

Re: Non-Duality/Oneness is an Ego Game

Andrew, in a forum like this, with topics like this, we will probably never reach a quorum. Isn't it great to keep discussion open-ended?

Mike,

Could I have experienced this elusive “oneness” or do I experience it NOW? Possibly. But I'm hesitant to name it.

Let's say you did name it? Where could we go from there?

Frans, all wrong, eh? :)

Peace,

Nicole

Re: Non-Duality/Oneness is an Ego Game

haha!  yes!  where could we go from there?  nicole, this IS the question.  where, oh where?  haha!  

Re: Non-Duality/Oneness is an Ego Game

Alan, as always, though I did ask Mike specifically, of course I would be more than glad to hear from you and everyone else too. Everywhere in nowhere? I am intrigued. Please go on!

Love,

Nicole

Re: Non-Duality/Oneness is an Ego Game

*sings*

Re: Non-Duality/Oneness is an Ego Game

these horns? :)

love your lyrics!

Re: Non-Duality/Oneness is an Ego Game

I agree completely Nicole, but I'm still getting used to 'playing the game' of debating intangible principles, with the hope of possibly expanding my awareness.

Normally a comment like that to Mike is like a red rag to a bull, and always, eventually, illicits an entertaining response, if not from Mike, from Jeepdog.

You got in first!!!!

In peace and love and goodwill to all

an eccentric Aussie

Re: Non-Duality/Oneness is an Ego Game

It's true we can count on Mike and Jeepdog for fascinating answers, but equally true that we can count on many others for them too, including you,

Which is why I love this group so much!

Peace,

Nicole

Re: Non-Duality/Oneness is an Ego Game

I enjoy playing in this sandpit.

In some of the others the big kids kick sand in your face and then go running off crying to mummy when I kick it back, and I get into trouble even though they started it.

It's not fair…

Re: Non-Duality/Oneness is an Ego Game

Hey Mike
It looks like we are getting closer.  Thought can indeed 

 take us very far along the way

But sooner or later you have to leave the way, take a flying leap and leave the thinking behind at least for a bit.  It is in the space between 2 thoughts that absolute Truth is encountered.

Hey Evocati
I don't know if it was a typo or not but I love ricorama.  I'm considering changing my monniker.