LastThursday

There are three ducks swimming in a pond. Are they three ducks or a duck family? Is my coffee table a table made of wood, or wood in the shape of a table? You look at your reflection in a mirror then close your eyes, then open your eyes and look again. Is the second you the same as the first you? Have you not aged between the two reflections? Whether two events are separate or the same event, depends on how you frame the observation. The second problem is the one of 'time'. This is just materialist nonsense: time as a flowing river or unbroken thread is just plain untruth. There is only the current moment and that's it. The illusion of time is woven purely from memory and memory always operates in the now. Of course that's not a real answer, because 'memory' and the 'current moment' are both deeply deeply mysterious.

Hooray! I'm glad it makes sense to you. This is just information theory. The more cuts you have, the more 'bits' of information you have. So nonduality is a complete lack of information: zero. But it is 'made of' infinity so to speak. If you bend the metaphor a bit more, then the infinite paper and the infinite cut are actually the same thing. Duality (and information), is infinity cutting itself. But BEWARE. The metaphor is not the territory. I'm just talking like a run of the mill scientist, and playing fast and dirty with words and concepts (cuts).

The same link as between the number 1 and the number 2? So here is my poor metaphor for nonduality versus duality: Imagine a large sheet of paper that is infinitely large in all directions. It is perfect paper, it has no discernable attributes other than the fact that it's infinite. You can however count it, there's exactly one nonduality. Now, get some scissors and some infinite time and cut the paper in half. Now it has an attribute a cut (or boundary if you like). And if you count the areas, there are now two areas - this is duality. Interestingly you've created a finity (two) from two infinities: the infinite paper and the infinite cut. End of metaphor.

I'm by no means an expert, but surely there are different types of infinity? There are many things about ordinary everyday conciousness that is infinite in nature. Take thinking about counting numbers 1, 2, 3, 4 and so on. They are finite in that you can never get to the end, but, somehow your conscious mind can extend the sequence to infinity, it understands that sort of infinity. Or take the classic statement: 'This statement is false', an infinite regress creating a paradox. Yet the mind somehow understands it in it's totally. Then take a colour for example, there are infinite shades of green from very dark to very light, but your concious mind gets it. And the more you poke around with things that seem finite, they are actually infinite in nature. I would go so far as to say that nothing is finite at all!

So as I get deeper into being ever more concious, I hear this word 'identify' being banded around like it's some type of evil omen. But it wasn't until just now when it hit me, what the hell is this 'identifying'? It seems like the more I try and think about it, the less it means. Apparently, it's the source of all suffering, and suffering is to be avoided or at least dodged. I understand the sense in which identification is a narrowing of the immensity of being and the point of enlightenment is expansion, infinitely. But surely identification is just recognition or awareness? I identify with being a human being, living in the 21st century. I identify with being a white middle aged man. Those attributes may be an arbritary construct of my mind, which in turn is an arbritary construct of my society. But surely if I do away with identification, I do away with reality altogether? And pop, there I go out of existence...

I know I don't particularly need that romantic version of me. It's just a narrative which salves the current suffering. But you've hit the nail on the head, I'm a control freak. Why do I control? I suppose because I've felft that others have always had more control over me than I have. If I can't control the world, I can at least control myself. Don't let that fool you, I know well enough the foolishness of what I've just stated. There is no 'me' to control. But that's why I'm a Zen Devil, I can think my way out of anything to the n'th degree, but I don't embody it. Maybe it's lack of practice?

Ha ha ha ha. That made me chuckle. In laughter there is truth eh? No offence. I suppose language gets in the way. With all this conciousness work, my definition of 'you' or 'I' has somewhat expanded from the everyday version. I know or feel or whatever, that whatever 'I' am it is the totally of all the appearences and not apart from them. I feel or experience myself in everything. In other words all the appearences have 'me' in them, they're tainted with the essence of me and there's no way for me to step outside of that - in fact I wouldn't know how. So it's a simple step from there to say that I don't exist as a separate entity from the appearences, I am those appearences and no more and no less. Included in all the appearences are my thoughts and mental constructs, conditioning, yadda yadda. But. My ego is still part of reality, I am told that to be rid of it is bliss. My ego is part of me and I am my ego in small part, so what?

@lens I guess I'm at the stage of being a Zen Devil. I know, but I can't/won't/don't know how to apply. I know deep enough to realise my entire experience is a fabrication, but I'm still intoxicated by it. What keeps my in my place? Two things. Imaturity and I guess the fear of death does, or more precisely the fear of lots of suffering does. There is an irony there. What would lack of suffering mean to me? Complete freedom to be the animal I am. To kill my food and feed my loved ones and myself, to roam wherever I see fit, to mate when necessary, to use my skills to impress and to survive, to be bonded to a set of other animal humans, to understand the intricacies of the environment I live in, to live by my wits every second, to be sharp and alive and in tune with reality, to be pushed to my extreme as a human animal and come out of the other end, to be a hero! I know, romantic isn't it? Instead, it's 9 to 5, stuck in a artificially lit office, in front of a dazzling rectangle of meaninglessness, pushing buttons like a monkey all day, to go home and push a pizza into an oven for ten minutes, to sit and type nonsense into my laptop, then rinse and repeat. And for good measure an endless round of visiting and holidays in a pretense of 'getting away' from the grind. As Leo kindly says, prison.

@Mighty Mouse Ok, ok, I get it, nearly. Any sort of mental web or layer or net I cast over reality is a context, interpretation or 'identification'. But honestly, at this precise moment in time - whatever that means - to understand anything about what I'm experiencing, I need context. If there is no ground, then what? Absolute oneness is surely absolute no existence in any sense, it's less than a bit of information, zero. I identify, therefore I am, I am therefore I suffer? I want to stop suffering, I really do, isn't that the point of being self-actualised? I want to reach a point where I'm not impeded by suffering and I can be fully authentic, a.k.a. I don't give a fuck, or more to the point, I'm not even aware of not giving a fuck? That would mean not identifying with a whole shed load of crap I currently immerse myself in. But If I drill down to the the essence of the thing, then red is red, pain is pain, and lack of oxygen is death. How can I possibly not 'identify' with those things? Are they not reality?

Thanks. So: indentify = context?

The present moment is an illusion. Take a moment and think about something that happened yesterday in as much detail as possible. Now seriously question yourself and ask: 'When did that happen?', yesterday, right? Then ask youself: 'WHEN was I thinking about what happened yesterday?', just now, right? And so, next: 'What was I thinking about, when I was thinking about what happened yesterday?', exactly the same thing, yes or no? The only realistic conclusion you can draw, if you submit to it, is that yesterday never happened yesterday (or at all), it is in fact just a hallucination you're having in the present moment. You can draw exactly the same conclusions about events in the future, they're just the same hallucinations in the present moment. So what about the present moment? Ok, turn your attention to say, some music playing in the background, pay attention to the lyrics or the melody. Ask yourself: 'WHEN is it happening?', now, right? Ah no, it's gone already, it's already turned into a hallucination of a past moment. It's like trying to grab a pint of running water with your bare fist, you think you have it, but you don't. So again, the only sensible conclusion you can draw, is that the present moment is also a hallucination. BUT, at least the present moment IS the whole of reality, you just have to come to terms with it being JUST a hallucination.

This sentence is not real.

Is there such a thing as being in a state of non-duality; is this enlightenment? And if so, how would you know it, without comparing it to a previous state of duality? The comparison itself being dual? Confused.