How to Achieve Non-Dualism Intellectually?

[TimeSeeker]

Like I said, I am not going to argue with you, for what you believe is your own personal stuff, but its not mine.

You think we are arguing? I thought we are just talking.

I'm not an alien or a beggar in my own kingdom...I'll leave you to have the last word.

No. You aren't. But you are in a kngdom of one. Must be rather lonely in there.

I'm not going to be discussing this any further with VA either..there's no point in talking to a wall, unless one likes hearing the sound of their own echo through eternity.

From where I am standing - you were preaching. You were trying to impose your world-view on us. At no point did you actually try to engage...

I guess - you are recruiting for your kingdom. How is that going for you?

[Belinda]

I don't see that DontAskMe's idea implies nihilism. What I can take from DAM is that if all were known by some subject then there would be no duality. Non-Duality is what I'd call "no relativity". No relativity is eternity. No Known language can describe eternity as all known languages depend upon relativity.

BTW I am not trying to explain what DAM is saying. I am explaining what I personally find useful .

[TimeSeeker]

I don't see that DontAskMe's idea implies nihilism. What I can take from DAM is that if all were known by some subject then there would be no duality. Non-Duality is what I'd call "no relativity". No relativity is eternity. No Known language can describe eternity as all known languages depend upon relativity.

Eternity implies infinity. Infinities don't exist. Not in this universe. Even time is finite: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_deat ... e_universe

And so any non-dualistic, subjective reference frame necessarily exists outside of the time dimension. You might as well call it God.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Here is one fact;

1. All of our knowledge of reality [the known with a knower] is based on justifiable facts and knowledge which can be proven.
This is like standing on solid rocks with miles high cliffs.

Yes, but all this ''thinking'' are just beliefs, concepts and imagination appearances of infinity aka gods dream.

Note, God is an impossibility, thus not relevant to me.

The above 'knowledge' may have led you to interpret it as merely pure "thinking" without doing and interaction with reality. Pure thinking is limited [albeit necessary]. Another aspect of pure thinking is thinking in terms of "knowledge" that is purely theoretical, i.e. 'dead' disentangled knowledge.
When I discussed knowledge, it is very loaded with "beliefs, concepts and imagination" this is extended to spontaneous interaction with reality, i.e. 'living' entangled knowledge.

The term "knowledge" in another more refined sense involves interaction with reality and actions as well.

Thus when you are attempting to cross a busy road, you have with you in reality, beliefs, concepts, imaginations, intuitions, and many other things in your brain/mind and body. These beliefs, concepts, imaginations, intuitions etc. not merely 'pure thinking' they are real elements that is necessary for you to cross the busy road safely.

If you simply ignore these beliefs, concepts, imaginations, as "thinking" only, you could end up being crushed by a bus while you are crossing the busy road.

Therefore you would be very ignorant and stupid if you still think 'knowledge' is solely pure thinking.

Knowledge [alive] in this sense entangles and interacts with the reality which we are part and parcel of.
Therefore the empirical reality [and its knowledge] is a reality you cannot simply ignore.
It is from this empirical reality that we are able to understand how illusions arise in the mind of humans, i.e. including the necessary mother of all illusion, i.e. God.

From what you have posted, you are running away from this 'real' reality and attempt to idealize an unreal fake reality which is impossible to exists, i.e. the Absolute Reality.

In reality..No ''thinker/philosophiser'' has knowledge. Everything aka Nothing IS knowledge..including the idea there is a ''thinker'' that has knowledge,or knows that knowledge ...In reality No separate thinker or thing knows knowledge..there is ONLY KNOWLEDGE which is an appearance within the dream of separation.

Knowledge informs the illusion of a separate knower, so nothing to prove here. Prove requires the presence of ''another'' ..there is no such other.

There is no one to be here or not be here except in the dream of separation, the world of conceptual opposites.

To know One ..one simply has to know one is not here in order to know one is here...but this is all belief, concept and imagination within the dream of opposites that exist in the same dream moment appearing within the same one absolute reality.

No one really knows one is being..one is simply being without knowing. (life and death is knowledge which is the dream of separation, an illusory appearance of infinity) In infinity there is no one to know life or death..except as imagined belief and concept.

There is no knowledge of not being here, and the knowledge of being here is a fictional story appearance within absolute infinity.

Therefore, Absolute reality is actual, direct experience of being, right here and now without beginning nor end add infinitum. All concepts, belief, imagination is couched in THAT, not outside living some independant separate existence which is just Gods aka infinities dream.

As I had explained you are running away from the real reality [easily proven] to an unreal fake Absolute Reality which cannot be proven at all.

Btw, if you are not aware, Kant is claimed by many to be the greatest Western Philosopher of all times.

Everything and Nothing is a philosopher. . as is with any other expression of all that is possibly possible actualised directly straight from the sources mouth, add infinitum.

Kant may have been the greatest philospher, but even the greatest philosophers which are only and ever conceptualised imagined dreamt characters aka appearances of infinities dream ..eventually die as believed..yet are constantly re-newed, re-hashed, or re-placed with ever greater philosophers...albeit in the dream of separation of gods aka infinities dream.

All conceptual imagined dreams within dreams believed to be real add infinitum...

As soon as source energy speaks, the world of conceptual imagined believed to be real dreams manifest...aka illusions within the real.

The real is silent, the illusion is the conceptualisation of the silent.

Silence is this direct actual experience of BEINGNESS/ONENESS...which cannot be spoken about. Silence is God, anything spoken about... is Gods illusion. ..aka an expression, an illusory happening within infinity...that never happened.

Being totally silent right now is the only real reality...everything spoken about it, that is belief, imagination and concept.

...belief, imagination and concept has no effect on what is real reality, none whatsoever...real reality is infinity, ungrounded, unbounded, untouched, unborn, and unchanging...all appearances are illusions couched within this.

Nope what [the philosophical principles] Kant reasoned is a generic fundamental [substance] knowledge but provision for explanation from different forms toward the future.

As I had explained above, your claim of Absolute Reality is unreal, an illusion and a fake albeit is very necessary for your [& others of the likes] psychological problem.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I don't see that DontAskMe's idea implies nihilism. What I can take from DAM is that if all were known by some subject then there would be no duality. Non-Duality is what I'd call "no relativity". No relativity is eternity. No Known language can describe eternity as all known languages depend upon relativity.

BTW I am not trying to explain what DAM is saying. I am explaining what I personally find useful .

DAM's view do imply nihilism, i.e.

....
Nihilism may also take epistemological, ontological, or metaphysical forms, meaning respectively that, in some aspect, knowledge is not possible, or reality does not actually exist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism

In the above sense, DAM believes reality in the empirical senses do not exists are real but only Absolute Reality exists as 'real'. I do admit such a fake belief is useful for the majority but it is an illusion and cannot be real at all.

Empirical reality can easily be proven objectively & relatively and conditionally via Science & other empirical means.
Absolute Reality on the other hand is moot, a non-starter thus a impossibility.
The only reason why people idealize [not conceptualize] an impossible Absolute Reality is for a psychological reasons to deal with an inherent existential crisis.

The real critical bottleneck is humanity has yet and it is still a long way to understand how their brain and mind work fully.
Without a reasonable knowledge of their own brain and mind, how can they be so confident an Absolutely Reality [actually a fake, illusion, unreal and by the highest reason an impossibility] exists.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Note the fact is whatever results from meditation and other spiritual practices are confined only to what is happening to mental, brain and body activities of the individual person.

No, this is a fallacy, a conceptual belief there is a ''someone'' with a brain and a body... That I AM my brain and body, is a conceptual believed idea, an appearance appearing nowhere in this already direct manifest I-ness...to then assume I am this and that ''other'' than this I is the illusion.

There is no person who has a brain or a body, a person,brain, body is conceptual, a belief appearance within the actual direct awakeness that is life right now unclaimed.

The body or brain has no interest in meditation. This all stems from belief that there is a ''someone'' who has a body and a brain, that can meditate on whether it exists or not. There is no such entity except in the dream of separation..an illusion.

There is no such ''someone'' except as an idea arising in silent presence.

One doesn't have to ''think'' about being presence or not presence..one simple is presence directly manifesting right here and now.

Any idea that there is somehow a person or little homunculus inside your brain controlling things sounds stupid doesn't it?...I see you deny you ever implied this, but then you are exactly implying this by saying the following...

''Note the fact is whatever results from meditation and other spiritual practices are confined only to what is happening to mental, brain and body activities of the individual person.''

It's all a bit messy isn't it,..assumptions are constanly inferred even though there is no such inferrence made except the belief in this conception of a human being, aka a fictional dreamt character.

You could just be your self, aka the real fictional character, then you could stop trying to prove to yourself you exist or don't exist.

Your above is rhetorical and shifty.

Isn't it a fact that what you-e are typing in the monitor is from your empirical brain and body? There is a hierarchy of selves within this you-e.
Can you prove this is wrong?

What I can agree with you-e is there is no permanent self [I, me, you] inside the person's brain/mind and body that can survives physical death.

I don't agree with your-e idea of a real Absolute Reality aka God which you-e cannot prove at all.

I believe the no-I, no-me, no-you, no-person, and the likes as an idea is useful in some sense but one has to be mindful not to end up with extreme egoism, narcissism, selfishness.

But I believe a blanket belief there is no-I, no-me, no-you, no-person, and the likes without qualification is net-negative and very detrimental to humanity.
The individual human has evolved with the sense of "I" and personal identity for good adaptive reasons and such impulses should not be erased but should be modulated for efficiency and optimality.

Note humans have evolved with the very necessary emotion of anger.
However it is obvious anger is something that has caused terrible damage and sufferings to humanity. It would be stupid to get rid of the emotional circuit of anger in the brain/mind.

Here is the wise view on anger.

• Anybody can become angry - that is easy, but to be angry
  with the right person and
  to the right degree and
  at the right time and
  for the right purpose, and
  in the right way
  - that is not within everybody's power and is not easy.
  Aristotle

Thus for the I [self];

• Anybody will have a sense "I" - that is easy, but to interact with an "I,"
  with the right person and
  to the right degree and
  at the right time and
  for the right purpose, and
  in the right way
  - that is not within everybody's power and is not easy.

[Dontaskme]

Isn't it a fact that what you-e are typing in the monitor is from your empirical brain and body? There is a hierarchy of selves within this you-e.
Can you prove this is wrong?

No, there is no such empirical 'you' coming from the brain and body, there is nothing in the brain that shows up as empirical 'selves'

If it did doctors could autospy your brain and your autobiography would be imprinted there.


Actual Reality appears only when the mind is still and empty.
Everything we call reality is indoctination from one individual mind to another, all fiction.

Reality is an infinite Acausal unbroken chain of creativity, not some imagined tiny limited 'me' squeezed inside the confines of a skull.


.

[Dontaskme]

I don't see that DontAskMe's idea implies nihilism. What I can take from DAM is that if all were known by some subject then there would be no duality. Non-Duality is what I'd call "no relativity". No relativity is eternity. No Known language can describe eternity as all known languages depend upon relativity.

BTW I am not trying to explain what DAM is saying. I am explaining what I personally find useful .

Thankyou, and I absolutely agree with this idea. That's exactly what I am saying. It's very useful and positive, but note, this can only be a personal direct experience, it cannot in no way be taught or explained or shown by another.



.

[TimeSeeker]

If it did doctors could autospy your brain and your autobiography would be imprinted there.

Your auto-biography is imprinted on Facebook's hard drives, but if you looked at the raw, binary data you wouldn't be able to recognise it as your "autobiography". It is just a lot of 1s and 0s!

It's the same with brains. We don't know how they store and represent information, so we can't extract it.

[Dontaskme]

If it did doctors could autospy your brain and your autobiography would be imprinted there.

Your auto-biography is imprinted on Facebook's hard drives.

But if you looked at the raw, binary data you wouldn't be able to recognise it as your "autobiography".

The same with brains. We don't know how they represent information

But this is the fictional conceptual overlay .. the in-visible visualised. The looked upon ...not the looker.

.

[TimeSeeker]

But this is the fictional conceptual overlay .. the in-visible visualised. The looked upon ...not the looker.

It is not fictional. We can transpose a photo into 1s and 0s. We can transpose 1s and 0s back into a photo. And you can regognize yourself IN that photo!

So the 1s and 0s contain an IMAGE of "you".

You have memories. You can vividly recall your past experiences. Where do you think those memories are stored? How do you think they are stored in your brain?

[Dontaskme]

But this is the fictional conceptual overlay .. the in-visible visualised. The looked upon ...not the looker.

It is not fictional. We can transpose a photo into 1s and 0s. We can transpose 1s and 0s back into a photo. And you can regognize yourself IN that photo!

There is no self in a photo, there is the image of a self, there is nothing in the image that is living, breathing, pumping blood around the body, etc..etc..the image of what you believe is a self, is an image of the imageless. Emptiness appearing full.

Knowledge is a fictional story superimposed via the imagination upon ..''actual direct reality'' which is without knowledge.

.

[TimeSeeker]

There is no self in a photo, there is the image of a self

Agreed.

Is there a 'self' in a past memory of 'self' or is it just a mental image of 'self'?

Is there a "living, breathing, pumping blood body" in the past memory of self?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Isn't it a fact that what you-e are typing in the monitor is from your empirical brain and body? There is a hierarchy of selves within this you-e.
Can you prove this is wrong?

No, there is no such empirical 'you' coming from the brain and body, there is nothing in the brain that shows up as empirical 'selves'

If it did doctors could autospy your brain and your autobiography would be imprinted there.


Actual Reality appears only when the mind is still and empty.
Everything we call reality is indoctination from one individual mind to another, all fiction.

Reality is an infinite Acausal unbroken chain of creativity, not some imagined tiny limited 'me' squeezed inside the confines of a skull.

Again you are so naive on this.

Your empirical self is your whole living person, i.e. the physical body, brain, mental processes.
When the person is dead, there is no more empirical self or empirical you but rather an empirical corpse of a once living empirical self.

If you [empirical] commit a crime and charged, you [empirical] will be sent to prison, i.e. your whole empirical body, brain and mental processes will be confined within a prison cell.

note the empirical Personhood,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Person

A person is a being that has certain capacities or attributes such as reason, morality, consciousness or self-consciousness, and being a part of a culturally established form of social relations such as kinship, ownership of property, or legal responsibility.[1][2][3][4] The defining features of personhood and consequently what makes a person count as a person differ widely among cultures and contexts.

In addition to the question of personhood, of what makes a being count as a person to begin with, there are further questions about personal identity and self: both about what makes any particular person that particular person instead of another, and about what makes a person at one time the same person as they were or will be at another time despite any intervening changes.

How can you [empirical] insist the above empirical 'you' do not exists?


Note it is very obvious and empirically proven,
it is very common for those with mental illness to insist the empirical 'you' 'me' and 'I' do not exists as real.
Note my thread on this;

Depersonalization & Derealization and No-Me.
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=25224

Note the man who thought his wife do not exists but rather is a hat;

"The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat", about Dr. P, who has visual agnosia; however, before that diagnosis is reached, Dr. P consults an ophthalmologist when he develops diabetes, thinking that it might affect his vision. The ophthalmologist tells him that he does not have diabetes and instead refers him to Dr. Sacks, to whom Dr. P describes his symptoms of visual agnosia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Man_W ... _for_a_Hat

As such you have to reconcile your views to above cases?

I believe you are on the same continuum with the above cases, whilst they are 80/100 or 50/100, yours is 20/100 along the same continuum.

[Dontaskme]

There is no self in a photo, there is the image of a self

Agreed.

Is there a 'self' in a past memory of 'self' or is it just a mental image of 'self'?

Is there a "living, breathing, pumping blood body" in the past memory of self?

Yes, but its all....conceptual mental imagery - pure emptiness at its core...appearing full, as seen by that which can never be seen or known...for it is the seeing /knowing.

.