Nonduality & Meditations

[Charlotte]

@Nahm Nice Nahm!! ?❤️

[Nahm]

@Charlotte ❤️??

[Aakash]

group contemplation hehehe

[FoxFoxFox]

@Nahm

Quote

The universe does indeed comprise of a single substance, presumably created during the Big Bang, and all sense of being – consciousness – subsequently arises from it.

This doesn't seem right. Ignoring the fact that there is actually no evidence for an event called the big bang ever having occurred, it seems highly erroneous to say consciousness was produced as a result of it. Additionally, you seem to be implying that there is a universe, which is made of a substance called consciousness, which is the same as the sense of being. Anybody worth their salt with regards to enlightenment will tell you that the ultimate ground of being, or consciousness, has not been created. There is some truth to your writing if you intended to imply that consciousness, the world, and the universe are actually in truth just consciousness. Where you lose me is where you say that an event has caused this ground of being itself being created. Sure, maybe the big bang keyed the creation of certain appearances, but how could it create the absolute? 

[Nahm]

@FoxFoxFox Good lookin out, thanks! I appreciate the vigilance, however, that is not my writing, but from... https://www.scienceandnonduality.com/about/nonduality/.

 

5 hours ago, FoxFoxFox said:

@Nahm

“The universe does indeed comprise of a single substance, presumably created during the Big Bang, and all sense of being – consciousness – subsequently arises from it.”

This doesn't seem right. Ignoring the fact that there is actually no evidence for an event called the big bang ever having occurred, it seems highly erroneous to say consciousness was produced as a result of it. Additionally, you seem to be implying that there is a universe, which is made of a substance called consciousness, which is the same as the sense of being. Anybody worth their salt with regards to enlightenment will tell you that the ultimate ground of being, or consciousness, has not been created. There is some truth to your writing if you intended to imply that consciousness, the world, and the universe are actually in truth just consciousness. Where you lose me is where you say that an event has caused this ground of being itself being created. Sure, maybe the big bang keyed the creation of certain appearances, but how could it create the absolute? 

In terms of the sentence you copied & pasted above, yes, of course. However, if we look at the author’s entire paragraph:  

“In the last century Western scientists are arriving at the same conclusion: The universe does indeed comprise of a single substance, presumably created during the Big Bang, and all sense of being – consciousness – subsequently arises from it. This realization has ontological implications for humanity: fundamentally we are individual expressions of a single entity, inextricably connected to one another, we are all drops of the same ocean.”

Then we can see the initial reference is not to truth, nor the author’s sentiment, but to what “Western scientists are arriving at”.

The author has used the word “presumably” before “created” in a reserved, humble manor - as an initial concession even -  to convey a sense of respect to readers who’s knowing of self is limited to the rationale of “western scientists”, while simultaneously expressing to the reader there is a much deeper truth. 

(pre·sum·a·bly: Used to convey that what is asserted is very likely though not known for certain.)

In understanding the subject of the paragraph thus far is what  “Western scientists are arriving at” - then we can see he goes on to elaborate on that with western science coming to a realization the universe is “one substance”, and that “all sense of being - consciousness - subsequently arises from it”  has ontological implications. By “ontological implications”, we are Invited to consider that there is a much deeper, relatively speaking - meta - truth of being.

(on·to·log·i·cal: 1. Relating to the branch of metaphysics dealing with the nature of being.)

In understanding the initial reference pertained to what “Western scientists are arriving at”, and acknowledging that is a presumption, the author points out the shortcoming of that presumption is limited: “all sense of being” . The writer then goes on to express the truth behind his implication (quite beautifully imo):

“fundamentally we are individual expressions of a single entity, inextricably connected to one another, we are all drops of the same ocean.”

So, the writing is not geared towards someone with your knowing, but perhaps towards a materialist with some interest in obtaining a deeper understanding of self & truth than western science has currently put forward. 

[FoxFoxFox]

@Nahm Maybe I jumped the gun a little, and now that you've explained the context, I can understand why you included that passage. I should have mentioned in my initial comment that I very much agree with the rest of your writing. 

This is more a critique of the concession approach than your post:

I personally advocate sharing the truth as directly as possible, without concessions to 'eastern' or 'western' minds, no matter how complex and inaccessible it may be. This stuff is already confusing enough and it is not our place to judge the ability of others to comprehend enlightenment. Enlightenment is deeply rooted in every single one of us. There is not a single being on this planet or anywhere else that is not enlightened. It is only a question of whether or not they know this themselves or not. By conceding to existing philosophical understandings people have, it is very unlikely that we can help them. More likely it will lead to their present confusions deepening. You can see this yourself when reading English translations of Sanskrit texts for example. Historically translators were more than willing to draw parallels between Hinduism and Christianity, and not just between the truth of Jesus's teachings, but also with the lies and fictions of the bible. So, if one was to read the Gita with the perspective of its classical translators, one would completely miss the point. That's why I always tell people to ignore the translator's notes and introductions in this kinds of situations. 

Edited January 1, 2019 by FoxFoxFox

[Nahm]

@FoxFoxFox I think we’re seeing this the same, really, and have very similar, if not the same, intentions. I can really appreciate what you said there. I do want to point out, (because you said “the rest of your writing”) and not to appear to take credit, that is not my writing. It’s from the SAND website. Mine was just an offering of an explanation, just an opinion of what the writer was conveying. It’s open to any interpretation of course.  I don’t know that he / she would consider it a concession, though I’m in agreeance with you, consessions are problematic. I’d add their name btw, but there isn’t one on the site. 

I am thankful for your comment. It draws attention to the limiting nature of making a post like this with only one explanation of nonduality. I should probably add at least a few more. 

https://www.scienceandnonduality.com/about/nonduality/

 

[FoxFoxFox]

@Nahm Peace

[Matt8800]

@NahmPowerful techniques. Great post!

For whatever its worth, I can tell how powerful a technique is because when I do it on some psychedelics, that technique will cause the psychedelic effect to get more profound the deeper I go. The awareness of thoughts technique produced one of the most psychedelic effect out of all the techniques Ive tried. 

Edited January 1, 2019 by Matt8800

[FredFred]

How have I not seen this yet? Very high-quality post! I like seeing threads like this here!

[Nahm]

@Matt8800 @FredFred thanks!

[pluto]

Edited January 20, 2019 by pluto

[Nahm]

@pluto That really says it all right there. ??

[korbes]

Awesome and valuable thread, thank you!

Jotted down the techniques which I think may be the most useful for me.

This helped me to realize I have to start practicing Meditation with discipline and not just when I feel like it.

[Nahm]

@korbes Thanks!

[Shin]

On 17/02/2019 at 8:39 PM, korbes said:

Awesome and valuable thread, thank you!

Jotted down the techniques which I think may be the most useful for me.

This helped me to realize I have to start practicing Meditation with discipline and not just when I feel like it.

The most effective meditation is when you don't want to ?

When you don't want to look at your painful thoughts ?

[zeroISinfinity]

@Shin Your whole life is meditation. Share it with me. ❤️??

[Dimi]

Thank you @Nahm, bookmarked

[Nahm]

@Dimi ??

[Fede83]

This post is so detailed !! Love ❤️

Edited November 27, 2019 by Fede83