How Do Non-dualists Regard Other People, Other Minds

[Joseph Maynor]

All is one, right?  That's a pretty lofty claim to my ears.  So, let's look at one potential problem with this theory.  Other minds.

Are all other people part of you?  Or is reality the complete set of individual non-dual realities? 

How are other people's consciousnesses a part of your skandhas though?  Don't you either have to assume that other people's consciousnesses do not exist, or that the same are illusory?  Don't both of those conclusions lead to a kind of absurd result?  It's pretty clear that other people do exist and we have reason to believe that they are conscious like we are, although we can't climb inside their minds to find out for certain.  So, what do we make of this?  Is reality the set of individual one-nesses?  That seems sort of *wacky* to me.  Non-dualism seems kind of implausible to me on this basis.  Please enlighten me on this issue.

Edited June 23, 2017 by Joseph Maynor

[Natasha]

@Joseph Maynor

Good question, and I think Rupert Spira has the answer. Also, check out his other vids on mind, consciousness, and awareness.

This is one of my favorite teachings of his:

 

[Joseph Maynor]

@Nichols Harvey Not enlightenment per-se, but non-dualism.  I got a big problem with non-dualism as a theory.  And that doesn't mean that dualism is correct either.  That would commit the false-choice fallacy.  It's possible that both dualism and non-dualism are false.  Enlightenment is real.  I practice it.  Not the concept of enlightenment that Leo has per se, but something with a family-resemblance to that.  Enlightenment is life-changing.  You don't need to accept the theory of non-dualism to be enlightened in some sense.  They're totally independent from one another.  Separate and distinct.  Although, non-dualists would likely disagree with me about that.  If they do, I would encourage them to argue with me about that so we can hash it out and take a look under the hood on that issue!   Otherwise we're just clinging to theories rather unconsciously.  Like dogmatists.  

Edited June 24, 2017 by Joseph Maynor

[Flow With Life]

On 6/23/2017 at 7:43 PM, Natasha said:

@Joseph Maynor

Good question, and I think Rupert Spira has the answer. Also, check out his other vids on mind, consciousness, and awareness.

This is one of my favorite teachings of his:

 

Wow, never heard it put this way before. Nice!

[Natasha]

1 minute ago, Flow With Life said:

Wow, never heard it put this way before. Nice!

Rupert's teachings are full of golden nuggets, one just has to pay attention and be open to receive them.

[ajasatya]

@Joseph Maynor oneness is not a mystical/philosophical thing. consider your body, with a stomach and a liver, i hope . they are both pretty complex objects but they are not complex enough to think consciously. yet, they're still part of the same body! and even more, the ways they function are correlated. a dead liver results in a dead stomach and vice-versa.

now, two persons. each of them can think "i" separately because they're complex enough to do so. yet, we are members of a bigger body, our planet. and planets are members of a bigger body and so on. we call the maximal body by the name of Reality, God or whatever. and it's alive!

back to the two persons context. we feel sympathy for the suffering of others. we care. we can also hate each other, just like some cells of our bodies may fight/destroy other cells. two persons are connected! it's that simple.

[Tano]

They (non dualists) regard other people as other people. But they sell the goodie of 'no other people exist'. It's pretty clever, if one looks at it closely.

 

[eputkonen]

On 6/23/2017 at 5:10 AM, Joseph Maynor said:

All is one, right?  That's a pretty lofty claim to my ears.  So, let's look at one potential problem with this theory.  Other minds.

Are all other people part of you?  Or is reality the complete set of individual non-dual realities? 

How are other people's consciousnesses a part of your skandhas though?  Don't you either have to assume that other people's consciousnesses do not exist, or that the same are illusory?  Don't both of those conclusions lead to a kind of absurd result?  It's pretty clear that other people do exist and we have reason to believe that they are conscious like we are, although we can't climb inside their minds to find out for certain.  So, what do we make of this?  Is reality the set of individual one-nesses?  That seems sort of *wacky* to me.  Non-dualism seems kind of implausible to me on this basis.  Please enlighten me on this issue.

When you are dreaming at night...you see a whole world of other beings and people...but are there really "other people"?  All the characters in the dream and in fact the whole of the dream came from one mind.  Other dream characters appear to be conscious and think, but you are only aware of the one dream character you are playing...although you are really all of it.  There has only been the one mind the whole time.

 

[Nahm]

@Joseph Maynor Everything is made of superposition. A word for; everything everywhere all the time. Everything is made of it. Minds are made of it also. Minds are everything, everywhere all of the time. Can you imagine that?

On 6/23/2017 at 6:10 AM, Joseph Maynor said:

All is one, right?  That's a pretty lofty claim to my ears.  So, let's look at one potential problem with this theory.  Other minds.

Are all other people part of you?  Or is reality the complete set of individual non-dual realities? 

How are other people's consciousnesses a part of your skandhas though?  Don't you either have to assume that other people's consciousnesses do not exist, or that the same are illusory?  Don't both of those conclusions lead to a kind of absurd result?  It's pretty clear that other people do exist and we have reason to believe that they are conscious like we are, although we can't climb inside their minds to find out for certain.  So, what do we make of this?  Is reality the set of individual one-nesses?  That seems sort of *wacky* to me.  Non-dualism seems kind of implausible to me on this basis.  Please enlighten me on this issue.