What Do You Think Of This Description Of Inseparable Distinction In Non-duality?

[Joseph Maynor]

From page 56 of the book "Heidegger, Phenomenology and Indian Thought" by Peter Wilberg.

"[T]he essential principle of 'non-duality' [is the] principle of inseparable distinction -- understanding pure awareness as neither separate from the world of experience and its differentiated  contents of consciousness, nor merged in indistinct unity with them."

Edited July 28, 2017 by Joseph Maynor

[Vladimir]

I think it's well said.

[Shanmugam]

@Joseph Maynor He has tried to make it very precise, but as any definition of non-duality, this will certainly sound vague for a beginner. A beginner would need a lecture to even get a little bit of understanding of what he means by these words, otherwise they will interpret it according to their own spiritual maturity and understanding.

"[T]he essential principle of 'non-duality' [is the] principle of inseparable distinction -- understanding pure awareness as neither separate from the world of experience and its differentiated  contents of consciousness, nor merged in indistinct unity with them."

By saying 'merged in indistinct unity', he is talking about getting identified with everything or getting lost in things. This is caused by superimposition of non-self on self.

Basically the idea of a limited identity acts as a veil between awareness and the world, creating a duality.

By saying, 'neither separate from the world of experience and its differentiated  contents of consciousness', he is talking about the actual non-dual way of experiencing the reality. Once the veil of ignorance (superimposition) is removed, awareness doesn't feel separate from the world...Everything is united in perfect advaita (no duality) and perfect yoga (union).. But this is different from 'being merged in indistinct unity'.

Edited July 28, 2017 by Shanmugam

[Shanmugam]

I just began to read Osho's talks on Kena Upanishad, and the very first thing that he talks about is the difficulty of expressing the absolute truth in words:

"When a lived experience comes into words, it looks dead, pale. A lived experience which is total, in which your whole being dances and celebrates, when it is expressed through the intellect looks just dull, of no significance.

Those who do not know, they can talk much because they have nothing with which to compare. They have no original experience; they cannot know what they are doing. Once someone knows, he knows what a problem it is to express it.

Many have remained totally silent and many have remained completely unknown because of that – because we can only know about someone who speaks. The moment someone speaks he enters society. When someone stops speaking he leaves society, he is no more part of it. Language is the milieu in which society exists. It is just like blood: blood circulates in you and you exist. Language circulates within society and the society exists. Without language there is no society. So those who have remained silent, they have fallen out of it. We have forgotten them. Really, we have never known them.

Somewhere Vivekananda has said – and it is very very true – that the Buddhas, Krishnas and Christs that we have known are not really the representatives. They are not really central, they are on the periphery. The central most happenings have been lost to history. Those who became so silent that they couldn’t communicate with us are not known. They cannot be known: there is no way to know them. In a way Vivekananda is right but those who have become so silent that they have not uttered anything about their experience have not helped us. They have not been really compassionate enough. In a sense they have been totally selfish.

It is true that to say anything about truth is difficult, but even then it has to be tried. It MUST be tried because even a diluted truth will be helpful for those who live in total illusion. Even something which carries a very very far echo will help them to change.

It is not that Buddha is very happy with what he says. Whatsoever he says, he feels is not true. He feels the same way as Lao Tzu felt. Lao Tzu says, ”That which can be said cannot be true. The moment it is said it is falsified.” But still, those who live in worlds of many many illusions, those who are deeply asleep, fast asleep, for them even a false alarm may be helpful. If they can come out of their sleep, if they can be brought to a new consciousness, to a new being, even a false alarm is good. Of course, when they awaken themselves they will know that it was false – but it will have helped.

In a sense, wherever we are and whatsoever we are, we are so false that, really, absolutely pure truth is not needed at all. It cannot penetrate you. It will not have any contact; you will not be able to understand it. Only a very diluted truth, modified – in a sense, falsified – can have any appeal for you, because then you can understand the language; it has been translated for you."

[Ananta]

@Joseph Maynor It could be looked at different ways. One way is that  anything phenomenal is awareness, meaning it's made out of/from pure awareness, so it's "not different" from pure awareness, in that sense.

However, it is also "not the same" as it is Mithya (illusion), because it's always changing, temporary and inert. Pure awareness is never changing, always present and permeates every thing. It's the illuminating factor or principle that causes inert phenomena to become active/enlivened.

So, you could say the world is me, but I am not the world. Another words, you can't be the world, because you are aware OF the world, but the world is you, awareness. 

 

[Joseph Maynor]

@Anna1 Making a distinction between experiencer and experienced is also concept.  I'm not saying you did that, but it's kinda hard not to want to do this.  Most people do this.

Edited July 28, 2017 by Joseph Maynor

[Ananta]

3 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

@Anna1 Making a distinction between experiencer and experienced is also concept.  I'm not saying you did that, but it's kinda hard not to want to do this.  Most people do this.

The experiencer is also part of Mithya.

[Natasha]

6 hours ago, Joseph Maynor said:

From page 56 of the book "Heidegger, Phenomenology and Indian Thought" by Peter Wilberg.

"[T]he essential principle of 'non-duality' [is the] principle of inseparable distinction -- understanding pure awareness as neither separate from the world of experience and its differentiated  contents of consciousness, nor merged in indistinct unity with them."

I think Leo covered this in his recent infinity vids with the sand statue and zip-file examples. That's also what teachers of non-duality mean when they say 'everything and nothing'. 

[Ananta]

5 hours ago, Anna1 said:

So, you could say the world is me, but I am not the world. Another words, you can't be the world, because you are aware OF the world, but the world is you, awareness. 

 

@Joseph Maynor  oh, btw, when I used the word "me/I/you" I was referring to  awareness. Not the "apparent" person I/we appear to be. Sorry, if that caused any confusion. 

[Joseph Maynor]

20 minutes ago, Natasha said:

I think Leo covered this in his recent infinity vids with the sand statue and zip-file examples. That's also what teachers of non-duality mean when they say 'everything and nothing'. 

I gotta watch that one again.  I've already watched it 3 times.   It is amazing.

 

[Ananta]

@Natasha I don't watch Leo's vids, not that I'm against them or anything. I might out of curiousity if they weren't 60-90 min. long and I don't have the time. 

Anyways, what did you gather from these vids your referencing? Do you know anything about the cosmology taught in Vedanta and was it that that?

Edited July 28, 2017 by Anna1

[Ananta]

1 hour ago, Joseph Maynor said:

is also concept

Hey, not to nit pick, but for whatever reason I start thinking how you say the phrase above very often. So, I looked up the definition-

Concept- something conceived in the mind :  thought, notion

Aren't all words, combinations of words a "concept"? A thought/notion conceived within the mind that is then communicated?

What are you referring to when you say concept? You have said it to me more then once, that's why I'm inquiring into this more. 

[Joseph Maynor]

@Anna1 A concept is a thought-story, a meaning.  It is the way that non-statement meanings are referred to in Western Philosophy, especially post-Kant.

A statement is a meaning, belief, or thought-story that can be true or false (or fall into that illusory dichotomy prima facie).  Concepts are usually not true or false.  Concepts often correlate with words as opposed to sentences.  Statements often correlate with complete sentences, although it is not necessary that they do.

So we have concepts and statements as types of thoughts.  These are paradigms that come from the Western end of Philosophy.

Edited July 29, 2017 by Joseph Maynor

[Ananta]

@Joseph Maynor  I'm kinda sorry I asked ..lol. Over my head! Do you talk like this because of your background in philosophy? Or am I just not up on the "don't talk concept" spiritual game?

I must admit I don't get it, so please excuse my concepts in the future.

Edited July 29, 2017 by Anna1

[Joseph Maynor]

5 minutes ago, Anna1 said:

@Joseph Maynor  I'm kinda sorry I asked ..lol. Over my head! Do you talk like this because of your background in philosophy? Or am I just not up on the "don't talk concept" spiritual game?

Philosophy should make things clearer not more opaque.  It's just a different language game.  A different paradigm.  All beliefs are paradigms.  Reality has nothing to do with 99.9% of paradigms.  But, if you wanna play the communication game about this stuff, you gotta pick your poison.  Otherwise we could all just shrug our shoulders, smile, and this forum would no longer exist.  Who has the audacity to conceptualize enlightenment here?  haha.  99.9%  (It's cool that I was able to use that twice.)

Edited July 29, 2017 by Joseph Maynor

[Ananta]

Just now, Joseph Maynor said:

Philosophy should make things clearer not more opaque.  It's just a different language game.  A different paradigm.  All beliefs are paradigms.  Reality has nothing to do with 99.9% of paradigms.

So, how does one talk about reality without another saying it's concept, when concept, by definition, is a thought or notion in the mind? See the problem?

[Joseph Maynor]

@Anna1 The only real truth is that thought-stories have nothing to do with reality.  And even this truth doesn't have to be formulated conceptually.  We can confirm this empirically.  It's just that trickiness of thought makes that hard for people to do without some instruction from someone else who has observed this difference.  Everything else said is just scaffolding.  Like little zen-stick slaps, nothing more. Little jabs to the monkey to keep it useful to some purpose.  

Edited July 29, 2017 by Joseph Maynor

[Natasha]

49 minutes ago, Anna1 said:

Do you know anything about the cosmology taught in Vedanta and was it that that?

I haven't studied Vedanta, but what Leo did in these last 2 videos he'd pulled together hundreds/thousands years worth of human wisdom to explain the nature of the Absolute. It's hard to put in a post everything he covers there, maybe you can listen in short pieces while driving or taking lunch. I'll be taking the time to watch the Infinity episodes again this weekend, just one time was not enough for me to really get all the points and contemplate on the content presented. What he's talking about there is super advanced stuff. Leo is easy to listen, though. Give his vids a shot sometime    

[Ananta]

@Joseph Maynor yeah, I have apprehended my true nature years ago. That can't really be talked about, I've never even tried, to be honest, because it's thought-less. All we can do is point.

 

[Ananta]

@Natasha yeah, after I asked I figured you couldn't summarize in a post..lol. I guess I'm really not searching/looking for anything anymore, Vedanta answered my questions, so I don't have the motivation to listen. But, Im somewhat curious as to what he's saying since people mention it often. So, I'll try to catch the infinity one, when I have a chance. Thanks.