tsuki

@Leo Gura The notion that language is inherently dualistic is what is both the reason for, and the conclusion you draw from your example. The dualistic nature of language is what lets you understand the question about trash as relative. This is what you bring to the table when your spouse asks the question and it determines the possibility space of answers. Duality of language is a cyclic dependency that upholds the distinction between the relative and the absolute as a necessity. From my point of view, language is not inherently dualistic. It is a choice you (consciously, or unconsciously) make. I am sure that I am projecting, because this response is dependent on my personal understanding of what you wrote thus far, and if it somehow misrepresents your understanding of language, then please guide me out of it. However, if you disagree that language can be non-dual, then please hear me out as I will try to sketch a perspective from which it is apparent to me. The dualistic notion about language is the 'filter' through which we project meaning on the question about the trash. Broadly speaking, this filter treats language as a tool to establish relationships in the relative domain. Asking: "Hey, did you take the trash out?" is the question about the relationship between the trash and our living space. If I wanted to answer this question, I would then establish relationship as positive, or negative. Say that the trash is out, or not. From this point of view, any other answer would not be an answer to this question, because it asks about the relationship. This notion is most prominently explained in the Wittgenstein's Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, which he concludes just like you: The problem with this approach is that language is not only used to establish relationships, but also to carve the absolute into pieces between which the relationships are established. So now, 'the trash' and 'the living space' can be described, by pointing finger at them and calling them names. But pointing a finger is also a form of a relationship that has to be understood first! How do you point a finger at pointing a finger? How do you explain what pointing a finger is without prior language? Therefore, by the very nature if it - the dualistic notion of language can never be completed. I believe that this is the true meaning of the Tractatus - it is a critique of the dualistic view of the language, and not a defense of it. The non-dual view of language is more in line with his second book, Philosophical Investigations. From this point of view, language is like trying to learn the game of chess from a Chinese master through the internet with no chat. All you can do is move the pieces and let him correct you. This is only possible because we both arrive at this context with presupposition that I am supposed to learn, and he is supposed to teach. With this presupposition however, it is incredibly difficult for the student to establish a rule and change the game of chess. How much time would it take for the master to understand that he is supposed to let me do the illegal move? This way, in real communication, it is absolutely crucial that we approach the situation as neither the teacher, nor the pupil, so that we can understand each other. This undifferentiated openness, the unknown, is the absolute that underlies all language. From this point of view, all interactions are ways to establish oneness. Even conflict is nothing else than one person doing an illegal move and the other correcting them. It takes time to understand that there is a mismatch of context, but approaching the situation as neither the pupil, nor the teacher is what preserves the possibility of interaction. From this point of view, there are no 'bad situations' one may get when he does not distinguish relative and the absolute. It is that any distinction between us is the root of all problems. In this sense, asking whether I took the trash out is not about the trash at all. It is a question whether our relationship (I=you=we) is complete enough so that my spouse does not have to concern herself with this banal matter of taking the trash out. So the proper response is not saying: yes I did, or: no, I didn't. The proper response in this context is: don't worry about the trash, honey. And yes - you can say that the trash do not exist and it can be a valid answer, if oneness is established in relation to spiritual culture. Problems that arise when you respond in this way come from 'the other' when what you do is so unlike any other interaction that you previously had that they do not even recognize it as a form of communication. It's like meeting the Chinese master, and starting up front with establishing a rule that it is okay to throw pieces at your opponent. The trouble it gets you in is predicated on the lack of intelligence on both parts. One is hasty enough to establish a rule too quickly, and the other is not open enough to notice his will to do so. First, you need to learn to play chess, then show the master that you are his match, and only then you can start to make your own rules so that he understands it. It is entirely possible to throw pieces at each other intelligently, but it takes time and skill. Or unconditional willingness to stay open, which is an inner relationship to the Absolute. A more civil conversation in this tone would be: "Hey, did you take the trash out?" "Why would we want to take them out if we just brought them in?" (the trash are the same as grocery = the trash doesn't exist)

@robdl Language is partial only as long as the mind takes possession of it. To me, there is nothing that can be said that cannot be misconstrued. No distinction can be made if the intent is to pick it apart. We can, but it won't help in the slightest. Unless the audience knows what is being talked about, no amount of distinctions and clear, logical, deduction can help with this task. I think that the core of your teaching that can be explicated into a message like @Faceless wrote, has no effect other than opening potential for religion. Unless it is understood by the audience, the clear distinctions will be turned by the mind into dogma. Dogma being the repeated usage of terms that the mind assumes it understands, but misses the point completely. This is often seen in communication between non-dual beings that try to assert their mutual hierarchy by talking about non-duality. It is impossible to see the non-dual nature of the other if you try to 'understand' their message in the traditional sense of the mind. Most successful spiritual traditions deal with this problem by passing their knowledge in form of riddles that point at the insight upon solution. Unless you understand them properly, they seem like nonsense. If you do, they reveal themselves to be jokes at your expense. Take zen koans for example.

@Faceless Okay, so here goes another question: From what I understood from our previous interactions, unless insight is found, the only movement that is at play is the movement of time (I). If that movement is mechanical, fragmenting in nature - then how is it possible to point at insight to that movement? If insight is opposite in its nature to the mind, then it is impossible for the mind to find it. So: insight has to be always present if it is ever to be discovered. In this sense, everybody have always been timeless without noticing it. Wouldn't then your call to find insight be an assumption that you make about others? Wouldn't it be much more efficient to change your assumptions about them?

@robdl The intent of this distinction is clear to me if you're trying to establish clear communication. However, even if the I is the accumulated past, the accumulation is being perpetuated by the so-called fear that is caused, again, by the accumulated past (or, in other words: I). Therefore, I is not only the accumulated past itself, but also the accumulation. So, saying that 'I' accumulates the past is not wrong.

Hi @Faceless , Out of respect for the connection we've made in the past, I will refrain from my impulse to pick your message apart, strand by strand. This impulse however compels me to ask the following question: You are the main advocate for abandoning of the accumulation of the past by the 'I' and seeing the world, as it manifests itself in the now. How is it then, that 4000 posts that you wrote on these forums use the exact same method of communication, very reminiscent of Jiddu Krishnamurti? What is it other than the very accumulation of knowledge that you advocate to abandon? You may treat this question as a projection on my part and approach it by trying to help me resolve my issues. However, only the answer to this very question will be helpful to me. Do not trouble yourself with questioning my own accumulation of knowledge. That is because I think that this question undermines all of your teachings, and until it is resolved - I remain indifferent to their meaning.

@Gligorije It is a problem only if it is limiting. It is limiting, when there are conflicting evidence for something and you dismiss the evidence to uphold the belief of gravity. For example: What if I said that I can make you enlightened, but you just have to follow this technique and first learn to levitate? Wouldn't you think up front that I am a charlatan and dismiss my promise? What if I was legit and not only I would teach you to levitate, but also make you enlightened? You wouldn't even give yourself a chance to hear me out. Of course, this example is fantastical, but there may be such situations in everyday encounters that we don't even notice because we assume that it is impossible to beat gravity without special equipment. It prevents us from even trying and block our capacity to notice. The question is: when is it warranted to question this very basic belief that it is true? To an everyday human, probably never. But for science, for example - this question is much more relevant and scientists are not willing to make half of its knowledge irrelevant. They are not even willing to look for evidence to disprove gravity any longer. And what is the scientific world made of, if not everyday humans? Also: where do everyday humans take their theories from, if not scientific world? This is how this belief is circular. The sheer amount of depth you need to explore to notice it is the reason for why it is universally held as true.

@Mount Bananas Repeat after me: The only normal people are the ones that you don't know. The only normal people are the ones that you don't know. The only normal people are the ones that you don't know. The only normal people are the ones that you don't know. The only normal people are the ones that you don't know. The only normal people are the ones that you don't know. The only normal people are the ones that you do not know. You, the first-person perspective of the world, by definition, cannot be normal. You know every single fuck-up you ever did and every single idiosyncrasy you have. In fact, you are the one that decides what is a fuck-up and what is an idiosyncrasy. Stop judging others to stop feeling judged. Stop judging yourself to stop judging others. There is no single normal person in existence. Normality is an abstraction. In a sample of two specimen (me and my dog), the normal amount of legs is 3. Internet strangers such as myself have nothing of value to say about you, to you. All we can say is how we see the world (which you are a part of). Our judgement is a judgment about our own little fucked up reality that we inhabit. Now go on and self-actualize the shit out of yourself.

@zoey101 Beautiful story. Thank you for sharing. I really liked the analogy with the glass of water. It reminds me of Jung's collective unconscious.

@exhale I can only tell you what my personal criteria are, so here it goes: If you recognize your emotions as they occur and give them their proper place in the context in which they arose. For example: when in conflict with another human, you recognize that your suffering is exactly as important as their suffering. Not less, not more important. Exactly as important, regardless of who they are. You do not give ground, but you do not take ground. You stay exactly where you are and wait for the storm to pass. Once it is gone, you address the problem that you know existed because of your (mutual) suffering. When it comes to pleasurable emotions, my guidance is to enjoy them, but expect them to end. It does not mean to get upset that the world is gloomy and you shouldn't be happy. It is more like the world can be gloomy, so we should be happy every time we get the chance. For me, emotions are like waves that come and go and they convey important information about myself. They are just that: important information. They are, however the only reliable source of information about myself. In a sense, they are like thoughts in that they show meaning, but the meaning is personal.

@zoey101 Congratulation on starting your practice! I wish you best of luck. Commit to it and it will take you places. Remember that in order to change you cannot become the old you, or make the old you bearable to the current you. You have to understand what is good and bad about you now, and what was good and bad about you in the past. This goodness and badness can only be determined by feeling into what is right for you. What feels right. Like if you try on a new pair of shoes and you take a walk to see if they fit comfortably. New shoes can sometimes give you blisters before they feel comfortable, but those shoes (like high heels) usually look nice, don't they? It's really up to you whether you want sports shoes or high heels and what 'comfortable' means. You wouldn't feel 'comfortable' in sneakers at a fancy restaurant on a date, wouldn't you? You wouldn't feel 'comfortable' running on a track in high heels as well. There is nothing wrong in having both in your closet and picking what's right at a given situation. So, if your family is important, then go ahead and take care of it. It may give you blisters at times, but it may feel right for you. For now, most things may feel uncomfortable for you, but that is because you haven't learned them yet. Stilettos are extremely uncomfortable if you don't know how to walk in them, but aren't they sexy?

@Leo Gura This distinction between relative and absolute is the root cause of the hierarchy of people with respect to consciousness. Is it really so convenient to make this distinction from this point of view? Aren't we (both?) creating our own problems this way? From my point of view, this distinction is the prime mechanism through which the mind 'deceives itself', like you said here: If it feels like I'm pulling your leg over something you casually said back to me, please let me know. I do not mean it that way.

@Leo Gura There is another thing I've been meaning to ask you for quite some time, Leo: Given that we agree on the strangeloop of context and content: how do you cope with the fact that all of what you wrote in the above paragraph is what you are? All of this is determined by your current context that decides that it is obvious that there are other people. Anything we perceive from within reality is not what is the basis for its creation, so other people (regardless of their level of development) are what is being injected into your perspective. Not only that, but the hierarchy of development in which you 'sort them' into more and less developed people is entirely decided by your (internalized) understanding of your theories of development. It has nothing to do with 'them'. 'They' are like a tree that is completely blank on their own. All of that is dependent on how you pulled on the threads of obviousness. Even the naivety part is predicated on your understanding of human nature. To me, all of that: top to bottom are thoughts about yourself. I am not saying this to somehow call you out, because I'm 'struggling' with this myself. This is what I'm doing here on the forum. Integrating this obviousness into lack of separation by making my theories account for everything. In doing that, they become ambiguous.

@Leo Gura Yes, the word 'fact' that I used is very popular and it generally means something that we can collectively agree on (through various means). That indeed means that there is the external objective paradigm at play if we assume that his word is used in its popular way. From the way in which you responded I have an intuition that you wanted to (friendly) point at an unquestioned assumption in my reasoning, but I read your post as if you agreed with me. So, just to make sure that I'm not projecting let me elaborate on what I meant by a fact: At this level of abstraction, there is nothing more of value that I can say about them. You're right, a popular way of use of the word 'facts' as in 'information that we can agree on' fits it, but so do many other uses! For example: a tree that we see is a fact as long as it is obvious what a tree is. As we look at a tree, the very act of looking is what makes tree a tree. We can look at a tree from various angles and the 'snapshots' of perception look nothing like the original angle but a tree is still a tree. This is what I meant by calling facts explicit: the always-present contrast of beings against themselves. Facts 'stick out', or so to speak. That of course doesn't mean that there is anything within the concrete tree that makes it a tree. Not even in conceptual/philosophical sense of asking: 'what is common among all trees?', but in raw, perceptual sense of drawing a boundary (distinction) between the concrete tree we observe ('through our eyes') and its background. This process in which we draw boundaries is not a fact in a sense that it is not explicit/obvious. There is nothing 'sticking out' (by itself) that we can point at and say: 'this is the obviousness itself!'. This always-absent obviousness is the link between the context and content (facts) within perception. A point at which these two disjoint categories meet. So yes, in a sense - all being is completely groundless, but there is this non-originated grounding which seems illusory when you inspect it. However, this illusory grounding is the basis for (any) reality and I prefer to treat reality with respect (by not calling it a lie). That's right! The measuring stick (context) is what determines facts (content). The problem with the measuring stick of the first-person perspective of the 'I' is that it is always absent from what 'I' can perceive. The only hint of its presence is through the present-but-absent obviousness at which we can pull to uncover the device. However, the measuring stick (context) which we uncover by pulling on the obviousness is not the one that we're currently in. By the very act of pulling on the thread of obviousness by contemplation we create a new shiny measuring stick to explore. This is the ausal strangeloop of context determining facts and facts determining context. That is what I meant by the rest of my post:

@zoey101 This is what this video is about! It gives you a perspective that lets you keep your dignity when you work on your relationship. There is no right person for you. This is why all relationships are difficult. Please watch these videos. They will not suggest you to leave your partner. On the contrary!

@Ferdi Le You think that because you live in a paradigm in which there is a one single truth that we all try to arrive at. This understanding is superficial. Just like @Arkandeus said: everything you experience is true. That is, at the same time, saying that nothing is true. The fact that a large chunk of your identity fell off, doesn't mean that it was not real. When you were in the middle school and had a fight over your crayons, was that real or not? You had your fight because your crayons were the most important thing there was at that moment. This is how an enlightened being can treat himself seriously.

@WorknMan You will know that you are truly contemplating when the idea of sharing the contents, or the method, of your contemplation seem absurd to you. Like: How can I possibly transmit this understanding to others?! Or: How do I even ask others questions about the things that I'm contemplating?! Take this statement as a positive description of what you should do and answer your own question.

@Time Traveler Your misconceptions arise from the ambiguity of the word 'observe'. We do observe the result of the experiment by noticing the interference pattern on the screen. Then, we try to actually observe the motion of particles, as in: which particle went through which slit. If we can tell which particle went through which slit, then the interference pattern on the screen disappears. There simply are two dots, instead of many slits. We can either observe which paths the particles took, or the interference pattern. Not both at the same time.

@zoey101 Here is a first video for you. It's only 5 minutes long, but it will make you understand your situation better. If you're interested, here is a second video on this topic:

@zoey101 That's the spirit! Why don't you create such a list and share with us? Do not create a general purpose list for every human being. You know that this won't work. Create a list of questions for yourself and show us how profoundly personal and honest they have to be. A life timeline is a very good idea. Just don't get stuck in your current frame of mind. Try to remember how it was at that time when you made those decisions and lived your life. Do not judge yourself from way above you are right now. Remember to be that person you were back then.

@robdl The way for the mind to break out of the loop is very simple. Just keep digging in one direction. That is all that needs to be done to dig yourself out of any hole.

@zoey101 That's a good start. Would you like it if somebody told you that? Everybody in here has repeatedly told you that there is nothing wrong with you, but you seemed to resist this idea. You may have had a hunch that it is not true. Would the other zoey believe you when you said that to her? The idea of this relationship is honesty. This self-talk is not a magic spell that will transform your life. You are supposed to treat that person as a real, blood and bones, physical person, and talk to her. Do you believe that she is real? Would you tell that person that there is nothing wrong with her? Or would you get upset with her for whatever she did? You really need a honest talk with yourself. Ask yourself question and answer them honestly. There will be no magic voice from outside that will respond. You have to do that yourself. You remember that girl. What she thought and why she did whatever she did. Talk to her and listen to your own responses. Let her speak through you. Telling yourself that you love yourself is a very good way to start, but you have to go from there. Nobody can tell you what to say, as you are the only person in existence that knows the other you.

@Lucas Lousada I touched this subject in this post, if you're interested: Separation between yin and yang is illusory. Yin is yang.

@zoey101 If mirrors scare you, you can use a picture as well. It would be perfect if you had a picture of yourself from 'that' time. The important thing is to establish a relationship with the other you. Talk to her. It would be perfect if you talked to her out loud, but if it is difficult because you are not alone, then talk with your inner voice. Make peace with her.

@zoey101 A ha! There she is! That's the other zoey. Believe it or not - all she does is clumsily trying to motivate you to get your ass out of that bed. Do you know why does she try to do that? Did anybody ever call her a failure to make her do things for her own good? When she's storming at you, you have to try to convince her that calling you a failure will not help you. When she pushes at you, you have to push back. Talk to her and ask her why is she so strict with you. You have to have a relationship with the other zoey. You need that relationship, because that zoey is the one who able to be ruthless. Even if you don't want to be ruthless, you have to know what it means for yourself. If you do not make friends with her, she will always, ruthlessly, blame you for your failures. She will bully you. Out of fear for her own well-being. Please talk to her. Make her like you. If you have to, you will have to accept her demands until she starts to listen to you. Just establish a relationship. Say hi. You can use a mirror.

@zoey101 What do you mean by crashing? I mean exactly, give me a description of what happened last time you crashed. We expect weather to change and we watch forecasts to dress appropriately. We do not want to be hot, nor cold. We do not however usually think that we have an inner weather of our psyche. There are no forecasts for it. We all end up doubting, or even hating ourselves. The point is to understand that it is the inner weather speaking. You may dress beautifully, but if the weather is bad - you will feel cold. You may be beautiful, but if there is a storm on the inside - you will feel ugly. Whatever you feel about the things that are happening is dependent on your inner weather. If it's sunny on the inside, something bad may happen and you won't even flinch. However, during an inner storm - small things may make you spiral. This inner weather can only be observed by your reaction to the world. Like I said - the world is a Rorschach blot. There are no objectively bad things. The only 'bad' there is is your feelings about it. Remember that during the next storm. Storms are important. They are violent movements of the psyche. A lot is happening in there and that is making you unstable. It's like having a fever. You're hot because your body is working on making you healthy. It makes you weak, so that you stop moving and rest so that it can work on its things. You have to let it storm itself out all it wants. This is how you make yourself feel better. When you feel bad - rest. Just like you would if you had a fever. It is not that you make yourself feel good about yourself and feel healthy. There is a storm by which you become healthier and only then, your psyche gives you a moment to rest by letting you feel peaceful. It knows that there is a lot to process, so it has to resume its work at some point. You have to let it. By letting it storm you are resolving your trauma. It is supposed to storm, as you've been through a lot. Do not fight it. Do not push yourself too hard. By doing that you are only make it more difficult for yourself.