I Can't Comprehend Non-Duality

[ajasatya]

5 bucks to the first one who go sit down and admit to himself that he's been arguing here just to protect his own structure of dogmas about the world and himself.

bbl. gonna get those 5 bucks asap!

[lmfao]

@Finland3286 imma address your original post that started the topic before I look at your reply to what I wrote, since my answer wasn't addressing what you were talking about specifically. In science, you make empirical observations of the world and make conclusions about how you think it likely functions. The problem with science is that science is based upon presuppositions and axioms about reality which you cannot prove. E.g. You might assume the past is real, you might assume you aren't living in a matrix, you assume logic is valid for determining truth. Logic can be used to defeat the validity of logic. Logically speaking, all sentences can only be determined to be true or false through holding unverifiable axioms about reality. Think about a specific belief you have, and look at the logic which has led to that belief. The real question is, from where is it that we can derive a golden standard of logic? Through what axioms are you arriving at conclusions you have about reality? 

You ask how you can go about understanding non-duality. Non-duality is to be experienced, and so you must do consciousness work. It isn't a conceptual thing, as you've already heard said to you. And I don't believe non-dual experiences can be likened to lucid dreams in the way that you say. A perfect lucid dream is a reality where your ego in perfect control. But to experience non-duality is to see that the ego is an illusion and that you are all of reality. You let go of the need to control reality, different from a lucid dream. 

6 hours ago, Finland3286 said:

Ok, I think I understand what you mean about the idea that the Non-Dual experience cannot be communicated through words. What i'm trying to get at here is if I have the right idea that as soon as I attach ones true self to anything that is not a constant presence that I have again failed to recognize ones true nature. I realize I failed when I tried to attach a feeling to myself and a sight as these are not constants. Also is enlightenment a direct experience with Non-Duality as you realize you are a constant? Is my ability to recognize that these ever changing things like feeling and sight are not me mean that I have the right idea or am on the right track about how to find out about ones true nature? Overall i'm wondering if i'm on the right track, i'm not trying to wonder about what the experience itself is like.

Hm, you talk about whether enlightenment is about realising you are a constant. I've been thinking about something similar recently. I wonder that if all we have is now and time does not exist then how does flux, change and perception exist at all? I started a thread. 

 

I've always thought you can frame the non-dual realizations in one of two ways. Either you are everything or you are nothing, both statements point to the same experience. So you could be pointing to the "right" thing in saying that you are not your sights and feelings. I've always phrased it by saying something along the lines of "the actions and thoughts are as much me as every other facet of my consciousness (E. G. The sounds of the birds or my neighbours outside, the sights I see, the actions of other people)". 

[Jack River]

36 minutes ago, ajasatya said:

5 bucks to the first one who go sit down and admit to himself that he's been arguing here just to protect his own structure of dogmas about the world and himself.

bbl. gonna get those 5 bucks asap!

Fear in movement 

[Forestluv]

1 hour ago, Jack River said:

What’s meant by this? 

Different cultures have different ways of life that are true relative to that culture.

For example: One culture would view eating insects as disgusting and animalistic. Another culture could view eating insects as a necessary part of their life to survive. Another culture could view eating insects as a delicacy.

So which view is true? Well, they all are - what’s true is relative to the culture.

Someone at the Green Stage would see this cultural relativism and believe that all these cultural views should have equality and inclusion. Yet, Green can get into thinking “I’m right. We should all treat these views as equal and include them in a multicultural community.”.

A Green can see the cultural relativism, yet can’t see that their own beliefs about equality and inclusion is relative to them. They see their belief as true and orange/blue perspectives as wrong.

[Jack River]

@SerotoninluvRight dude. Sub-Culture being conditioned to that form of bias. Sub culture determined by that a specific conditioned movement of thought. A persons thinking is relative to “the thinkers” conditioning. 

Edited September 8, 2018 by Jack River

[Jack River]

Culture determined by thought.

[Saumaya]

1 hour ago, Feel Good said:

@Saumaya

Your understanding is limited. 

Enlightenment can happen at any stage

I would actually hasten a bet that you're outright lying and making this up as you go along. Be careful with your opinions on matters you haven't researched properly

1) This not an intellectual debate. Rather than speaking from experience, you are posting ken wilber videos as an authority to prove your point. I am speaking from experience and my understanding of enlightenment is perfect. 

2) I have said that you can have minor awakening experiences in tier 1 but not full enlightenment. Rather than stating your reason for a contrary argument, you are posting a ken wilber video. And again the video you posted doesn't seem to refute my point

3) Your definition of research seems to me is blindly following someone. You haven't given me any reason why my reasoning is incorrect

I would be very happy to have a proper conversation about this and I am willing to change my stance if you could give me some evidence or reason. You don't seem to be doing that

[Jack River]

Even speaking from experience is considered bias right? Experience is conditioned. One persons experience thinking against another. One bias against another. 

[Saumaya]

1 minute ago, Jack River said:

Even speaking from experience is considered bias right? Experience is conditioned. One persons experience thinking against another. One bias against another. 

Truth realisation is not a experience. After truth realisation, your understanding of enlightenment would be perfect. Your degree of articulation may vary. If someone is truth realised, they would use the word experience. For them they didn't just read up about enlightenment. They are a living example of it. But if you can suggest a better word for it, that would be another thing.

[Forestluv]

2 minutes ago, Jack River said:

Even speaking from experience is considered bias right? Experience is conditioned. One persons experience thinking against another. One bias against another. 

I think experiences can lead to unconscious biases. Experiences can be very personal and subjective. Yet, is it possible to step outside our personal experience and view it objectively?

[Jack River]

1 minute ago, Saumaya said:

Truth realisation is not a experience

I agree. 

[Jack River]

Just now, Serotoninluv said:

I think experiences can lead to unconscious biases. Experiences can be very personal and subjective. Yet, is it possible to step outside our personal experience and view it objectively?

Experiences are conditioned by thought. Thought and experience are one. Not knowing the limitation of experience leads to personal subjective bias. Being caught in its conditioned narrow grove it is hard to see it objectively. Right?

 

[Forestluv]

10 minutes ago, Jack River said:

Experiences are conditioned by thought. Thought and experience are one. Not knowing the limitation of experience leads to personal subjective bias. Being caught in its conditioned narrow grove it is hard to see it objectively. Right?

 

Could experience be more expansive than thought? Could thought be within experience? Could experience be like a container that include thoughts, sensations, feelings and emotions?

[Jack River]

Just now, Serotoninluv said:

Could experience be more expansive than thought? Could thought be within experience? Could experience be like a container that include thoughts, sensations, feelings and emotions?

 I see thought a response of past experiences. Or that Thought and experience cannot be separated actully. So thiught and experience is conditioned or relative on one another. Seeing this limit is a realization that experience is bias. To go further and say can experience be more expansive depends on freedom wotjout that conditioned response. 

[Jack River]

That make sense dude? 

[Jack River]

13 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

Could experience be more expansive than thought? Could thought be within experience? Could experience be like a container that include thoughts, sensations, feelings and emotions?

I get this. I just wouldn’t call it experience anymore. It’s not experience. More like AWARENESS. 

Edited September 8, 2018 by Jack River

[Forestluv]

Would that be the mind remembering and creating memory?

Imagine an athlete totally flowing and performing in the moment without thought. Would we consider this an experience? Afterwards, the athlete will think about it and interpet it and create memories. Would we consider this an experience? 

I’m not suggesting there is a right or wrong view. I’m just exploring concepts of what an experience is. I like contemplating things and becoming aware of more and more distinctions 

[Jack River]

1 minute ago, Serotoninluv said:

Would that be the mind remembering and creating memory?

Yeah. Memory/experience makes for responses of thought.

2 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

Imagine an athlete totally flowing and performing in the moment without thought. Would we consider this an experience? Afterwards, the athlete will think about it and interpet it and create memories. Would we consider this an experience? 

First I would say “if that athlete was performing without thought” because thought is needed. Memory/repetition at a skill. This is respons of thought. There is interpreting durring and after activity. Same when I surf. Anything recognized would be experience. 

 

 

6 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

m not suggesting there is a right or wrong view. I’m just exploring concepts of what an experience is. Fun stuff 

That’s why your awesome man

[Jack River]

Just depends on if there is this reaction or response always habitually flowing 

[Forestluv]

@Jack River Gotcha. How about something that doesn’t take skill? Imagine a person walking to the edge of the grand canyon. The moment they see the canyon they are awe-struck. Their jaw drops as they stand in awe for 10 seconds. Speechless and thoughtless. Would you consider this an experience?

My perception is very mind-body oriented. It’s hard for me to conceptualize experience as mind thought. For example, intuition is on par with thought for me.