Someone, everyone, please take this seriously.

[Walker]

You cannot talk about what has never been your experience. What you can never know.

If Roy can do it I don't see why I can't.

I bet you have some ideas, though ... of why you can't, that is.

[Dontaskme]

Oh, it's gibberish,

But what qualifies you Henry, to even say that? Do you know for absolute certain that Roy's theory is 100% absolute gibberish... defined as: (unintelligible or meaningless speech or writing; nonsense.)?

How do you personally know that? or is it because you tend to dismiss that which doesn't make sense to you personally?

Aren't we all in the same predicament when it comes to our personal Theories of Everything?

Who is going to be right, and who is going to be wrong and who is going to be the one who authorises with absolute certainty and accuracy exactly who is right and who is wrong and how will that JUDGER know that even they are RIGHT..., and then there still would be the problem of where would they have gotten their absolute certainty FROM?

Do you see the problem here...I'm asking exactly WHO is authorised to know for absolute certain what the TOE is anyway except as your own personal idea?

You seem to be ok with IC's belief in God...and yet you say Roys' theory about God is gibberish....what gives?

[Harbal]

Hunter and hunted. It the subject object split, it is the typical model of perception that the subject here via some mode of perceiving notice something there. It's the assumption that one cannot experience the experiencer. It reeks of dualism.

Maybe you can help me out here: I haven't really got a grasp on what duality and non-duality are. My very limited understanding is that duality separates body and mind, or physical and mental, into two different kinds of things. Non-duality, I assume, says every thing (body and mind) is of just one nature, or something like that.

Now DAM believes in non-duality, and also likes Roy's "system", but Roy seems to be treating mental and physical as different things (duality), so I'm confused. If someone could explain, I would be most grateful.

[henry quirk]

You seem to be ok with IC's belief in God...and yet you say Roys' theory about God is gibberish....what gives?

Here's what Roy hisself sez, just up-thread...

1. The reason for the life of "your name here", is that it is a Divine game designed by you (aka: "God") for your own entertainment.

I'm not God. It's quite enough to be a free will without puttin' one's self on a pedestal.

2. The goal of the game is to find conclusion of the game (conclude Samsara), like a mystery to solve or a labyrinth to escape.

There is no conclusion. The future is open.

3. The path out of the delusion/labyrinth is through the shifting of focus of attention from outwardly facing (away from thoughts and sensations) to inwardly facing (Mauna: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mauna_(silence).

Things are as they are: there's no delusion.

bonus: Suffering and happiness are the guides. Following the path of Truth (the teaching) to the practice (Mauna/meditation) results in abidance in/as ones natural state, which is Absolute Happiness and Perfect Contentment.

Suffering & happiness are subjective results of experience, not guides. Absolute Happiness and Perfect Contentment do not, to me, seem to be anything more than stasis.

I'm no theist. I have my disagreements with Mannie. But raw Christianity is a helluva lot closer to the truth of things than Roy's notions.

But what qualifies you Henry, to even say that?

I'm just a guy. I have the same capacity for reason as anyone. I exercise that capacity. Sometimes I conclude wrong, sometimes I conclude right. Either way, though: it's my conclusion. I forgo the luxury of lettin' someone else conclude for me.

[henry quirk]

I haven't really got a grasp on what duality and non-duality are.

Duality is just discreetness: you are you, I am me, and we are not the same.

Non-duality is hokum: it's the idea separateness is an illusion and every-one and -thing is really one. Purveyors of this crap point to the universe as the example of this unity (it's all just one thing). Is that monism? Some philo-type will pipe up and tell us.

Whatever the universe is, it's a helluva lot more like a box with stuff in it than it is undifferentiated unity.

[Iwannaplato]

Maybe you can help me out here: I haven't really got a grasp on what duality and non-duality are. My very limited understanding is that duality separates body and mind, or physical and mental, into two different kinds of things. Non-duality, I assume, says every thing (body and mind) is of just one nature, or something like that.

Yeah, in a philosophy forum one would think of those dualities. Non-duality in neo-Buddhist/Hindu circles would be the end of the subject object split. So, we usually have a model with the subject (for example) looking at the object. Two things, one experiencing the other via the senses. But in non-duality you have something like 'just the experience'.

To connect it to Western philosophy it could be a bit like Husserl's bracketing. Where you set aside the issue of 'is it really an external reality I am experiencing?', but here you would also be experiencing without assuming a self. You just have experience.

It could be argued that non-dualism is more parsimonious. You don't separate out the ongoing nows of experience into several 'things'. Self and the perceived. You just have this sequence of NOWS. That's a kind of extreme non-dualism which brings into question the entire nature of reality (and is also a bit like idealism). But you could also have a non-dualism which has bodies and objects and so on, but there is simply no separation. There's no self in the body. I think that model has more problems than the other.

In any case the suffering is supposed to come from the false idea of separation from everything. That you are a self here and other stuff is there.

Now DAM believes in non-duality, and also likes Roy's "system", but Roy seems to be treating mental and physical as different things (duality), so I'm confused. If someone could explain, I would be most grateful.

Ok, this is a whole nother can of beans, me to explain their ideas. I think actually DAM tend to express something closer to the non-dualities I know of. I find it harder to tell what Roy is saying ontologically. I missed him having that dualism - you found that in the videos? I am not sure they believe the same things. And sometimes I am sure they don't. And the effects seem radically different if Roy's claims about his day are to be believed.

[Harbal]

Yeah, in a philosophy forum one would think of those dualities. Non-duality in neo-Buddhist/Hindu circles would be the end of the subject object split. So, we usually have a model with the subject (for example) looking at the object. Two things, one experiencing the other via the senses. But in non-duality you have something like 'just the experience'.

To connect it to Western philosophy it could be a bit like Husserl's bracketing. Where you set aside the issue of 'is it really an external reality I am experiencing?', but here you would also be experiencing without assuming a self. You just have experience.

It could be argued that non-dualism is more parsimonious. You don't separate out the ongoing nows of experience into several 'things'. Self and the perceived. You just have this sequence of NOWS. That's a kind of extreme non-dualism which brings into question the entire nature of reality (and is also a bit like idealism). But you could also have a non-dualism which has bodies and objects and so on, but there is simply no separation. There's no self in the body. I think that model has more problems than the other.

In any case the suffering is supposed to come from the false idea of separation from everything. That you are a self here and other stuff is there.

Thanks for the explanation. I'm still not sure I completely get it, but that might be because I can't see the need for it, or the point of it, which makes me think there must be more to it than I realise. It seems to me that our tendency to categorise and neatly label everything can get in the way of seeing clearly. I mean, if you say you are a dualist, or non-dualist, then you have already put limitations on yourself before you even start to think about anything.

It seems to me like a way of playing about with words until you have conditioned yourself into a certain way of thinking. Maybe that does have a benefit, but I can't see what the benefit might be.

I find it harder to tell what Roy is saying ontologically. I missed him having that dualism - you found that in the videos?

Well Roy seems to have gone a step further than dualism, and wandered into tripleism.

Actually, what Roy is pushing seems to have more in common with religion than philosophy, to my mind.

[Dontaskme]

You seem to be ok with IC's belief in God...and yet you say Roys' theory about God is gibberish....what gives?

Here's what Roy hisself sez, just up-thread...

1. The reason for the life of "your name here", is that it is a Divine game designed by you (aka: "God") for your own entertainment.

I'm not God. It's quite enough to be a free will without puttin' one's self on a pedestal.

2. The goal of the game is to find conclusion of the game (conclude Samsara), like a mystery to solve or a labyrinth to escape.

There is no conclusion. The future is open.

3. The path out of the delusion/labyrinth is through the shifting of focus of attention from outwardly facing (away from thoughts and sensations) to inwardly facing (Mauna: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mauna_(silence).

Things are as they are: there's no delusion.

bonus: Suffering and happiness are the guides. Following the path of Truth (the teaching) to the practice (Mauna/meditation) results in abidance in/as ones natural state, which is Absolute Happiness and Perfect Contentment.

Suffering & happiness are subjective results of experience, not guides. Absolute Happiness and Perfect Contentment do not, to me, seem to be anything more than stasis.

I'm no theist. I have my disagreements with Mannie. But raw Christianity is a helluva lot closer to the truth of things than Roy's notions.

But what qualifies you Henry, to even say that?

I'm just a guy. I have the same capacity for reason as anyone. I exercise that capacity. Sometimes I conclude wrong, sometimes I conclude right. Either way, though: it's my conclusion. I forgo the luxury of lettin' someone else conclude for me.

But you are missing the point when you think or assume there is a someone else who can conclude for you a TOE that is not yours. That's just obviously your own error of thinking. I have never once thought that anyone could do that, or even have the power or authority to do that anyway.


So thanks for reply ... but how you see things is not how I see those things you see.

I see things the way Roy sees things, because he sees things the way I see them too.

And Mannie sees things the way he sees things..and so does everybody else see things their own way....

In my opinion we can resonate with how other people see things...or not...overlapping of beingness where two or more people see the exact same reality according to their own direct experience is possible...and I see it Roy's way...and that's all I have to say on that matter.

.

[Dontaskme]

There is no conclusion. The future is open.

No, this is an error of thinking, it's wrong...the future does not exist, neither does the past...it is You that is open. You that is thought-free awareness...right here, right now...You have never moved. You are so open you are infinity itself, everywhere and everything, all at once.

Conclusions are within the dream story of philosophical mind.. which is delusion.

[Dontaskme]

Man, that's dualist.

How is it dualist?

Hunter and hunted. It the subject object split, it is the typical model of perception that the subject here via some mode of perceiving notice something there. It's the assumption that one cannot experience the experiencer. It reeks of dualism.

Not how I here see it.

Subject and Object are never dual, they are One.

And One is always within the dream world the artificial sense of separation where there is none in reality. Because the dream world is an appearance withing the observer, which is the zero point or reality, aka the void.

You cannot experience the experiencer because you are it. You are nothing being everything, same no/thing...0-1

[Iwannaplato]

Thanks for the explanation. I'm still not sure I completely get it, but that might be because I can't see the need for it, or the point of it, which makes me think there must be more to it than I realise. It seems to me that our tendency to categorise and neatly label everything can get in the way of seeing clearly. I mean, if you say you are a dualist, or non-dualist, then you have already put limitations on yourself before you even start to think about anything.

It's more of an experience than a philosophical position. Or, for many people it is. And probably you've had non-dualist experiences, perhaps with a person you care about, perhaps just listening to music, in nature...none of this to imply it has to happen when something 'nice' is going on, but it might be easier. It might flicker in and out. Might hold for a short time. It might simply get labeled intimate, though it would be more specific than that. IOW I don't think one needs to take an ontological stand to have it as a goal, though many do. And you don't need it as a goal or stand to experience it.

It seems to me like a way of playing about with words until you have conditioned yourself into a certain way of thinking. Maybe that does have a benefit, but I can't see what the benefit might be.

This would hold for pretty much any ontological position. I wonder often, even given what their beliefs are, physicalists and materialists hang on to terms that pretty much mean 'realism' and are not, despite their names, saying anything at all about ontology.

Well Roy seems to have gone a step further than dualism, and wandered into tripleism.

Actually, what Roy is pushing seems to have more in common with religion than philosophy, to my mind.

Well, he's definitely influenced by HInduism and likely Buddhism.

[Iwannaplato]

Not how I here see it.

Dualism, here.

Subject and Object are never dual, they are One.

Exactly, so what are you experiencing when you experiencing the one, both the hunter and hunted as one whole. Ryle is NOT a non-dualist. He is following a typical dualist model that that which experiences is not experiencing itself, but something else. That is dualism.

And One is always within the dream world the artificial sense of separation where there is none in reality. Because the dream world is an appearance withing the observer,

More dualism.

which is the zero point or reality, aka the void.

You cannot experience the experiencer because you are it.

What else are you experiencing then in a non-dualist state.

It is very hard to respond to you sometimes, because it feels very strongly to me that you are suffering tremendously and in your head you are, now for example, in a state of bliss. So, who do I respond to...the guy in his head who knows all the answers and sees them also in a perfect Roy? Because if I do that, respond to that part of you, I feel I am being insensitive to the guy who is suffering and lonely who has the other guy running his head.

[Walker]

Maybe you can help me out here: I haven't really got a grasp on what duality and non-duality are. My very limited understanding is that duality separates body and mind, or physical and mental, into two different kinds of things. Non-duality, I assume, says every thing (body and mind) is of just one nature, or something like that.

- Enlightenment is one thing. Being a practitioner is another thing.
- Enlightenment is a physical change. It happens fast, although the preparation takes all the lifetime leading up to the change. Any change in thinking and not-thinking is due to the energetic mind-body connection, and integration.

- To be a practitioner is to integrate the realizations of non-dual enlightenment with dualistic functioning by interacting with the environment.
- It begins with physical spacial orientation. Everything is new, so one must be careful with the body.
- Eventually, one integrates back into the dualistic world of subject/object relationship, but changed.

- To speak of non-duality is pointless, since it’s a physical change in energy. One way of saying what happens, which sounds new-agey but is a perfect description, is that enlightenment is losing the barriers that separates oneself from universal energy. One can speak of the effects but not the experience, since by definition experience is dualistic.

- Non-duality is non-conceptual, therefore concepts are not the doorway to understanding but rather, the doorway to subsequent dualistic understanding of non-duality is to begin distilling experience into non-experience, beginning with stillness of the body, for a still body has significantly reduced experiences.

- This is why Roy offered the advice that in order to become familiar with conscious understanding of the non-conceptual, then sit still for a predetermined length of time. It must be predetermined because you’ll find that your controlling ego will soon begin trying to rationalize it’s way into an early exit from the time constraint.

- In order to reach the point where you can sit still indefinitely, stalking your thoughts without distress or conflict, one must also reach a measure self-knowledge.

[Dontaskme]

Not how I here see it.

Dualism, here.

Subject and Object are never dual, they are One.

Exactly, so what are you experiencing when you experiencing the one, both the hunter and hunted as one whole. Ryle is NOT a non-dualist. He is following a typical dualist model that that which experiences is not experiencing itself, but something else. That is dualism.

And One is always within the dream world the artificial sense of separation where there is none in reality. Because the dream world is an appearance withing the observer,

More dualism.

which is the zero point or reality, aka the void.

You cannot experience the experiencer because you are it.

What else are you experiencing then in a non-dualist state.

It is very hard to respond to you sometimes, because it feels very strongly to me that you are suffering tremendously and in your head you are, now for example, in a state of bliss. So, who do I respond to...the guy in his head who knows all the answers and sees them also in a perfect Roy? Because if I do that, respond to that part of you, I feel I am being insensitive to the guy who is suffering and lonely who has the other guy running his head.

There is no such reality as duality, except in the artificial dream of separtion where there is none.

No one knows this. The only thing I know is that I know nothing. This not-knowing knowing.

You are confused about my state of mind. I abide in bliss, whether you want to believe it or not. I do not care. I've already explained to you the difference of attachment to suffering and acceptance of suffering.

To be honest, you are all in your head, whereas Roy is not in his head...and I resonate with Roy, because I understand the no head way.

Nothing personal. To be fair, i have absolutely no idea what you are talking about half the time.

[Harbal]

- Enlightenment is one thing. Being a practitioner is another thing.
- Enlightenment is a physical change. It happens fast, although the preparation takes all the lifetime leading up to the change. Any change in thinking and not-thinking is due to the energetic mind-body connection, and integration.

- To be a practitioner is to integrate the realizations of non-dual enlightenment with dualistic functioning by interacting with the environment.
- It begins with physical spacial orientation. Everything is new, so one must be careful with the body.
- Eventually, one integrates back into the dualistic world of subject/object relationship, but changed.

- To speak of non-duality is pointless, since it’s a physical change in energy. One way of saying what happens, which sounds new-agey but is a perfect description, is that enlightenment is losing the barriers that separates oneself from universal energy. One can speak of the effects but not the experience, since by definition experience is dualistic.

- Non-duality is non-conceptual, therefore concepts are not the doorway to understanding but rather, the doorway to subsequent dualistic understanding of non-duality is to begin distilling experience into non-experience, beginning with stillness of the body, for a still body has significantly reduced experiences.

- This is why Roy offered the advice that in order to become familiar with conscious understanding of the non-conceptual, then sit still for a predetermined length of time. It must be predetermined because you’ll find that your controlling ego will soon begin trying to rationalize it’s way into an early exit from the time constraint.

- In order to reach the point where you can sit still indefinitely, stalking your thoughts without distress or conflict, one must also reach a measure self-knowledge.

We all have to try and make sense of the world in our own way, and this is not my way. It might work for others, but not for me. But thanks for the explanation.