Isn't nonduality just another paradigm?

[SOUL]

1 hour ago, Serotoninluv said:

The concepts the two of us are offering IS concepts the two of us are offering.

The challenge isn't the concept. The challenge is viewing a concept as a concept. 

The human mind loves to think X is Y. That's all we are doing here. You have one way of saying X is Y and I have another way of saying X is Y. The content of X and Y is irrelevant. How can X be Y?     X IS X and Y IS Y.

A concept of nonduality IS a concept of nonduality. A sunset IS a sunset. A thought about the meaning of life IS a thought about the meaning of life.

The human mind fixates on what is on the left and right side of IS. Yet, the key part is the IS. With time, that which is on the left and right side of IS dissolves and there is only IS. 

 

I'm not offering a concept, awareness perception, or perceiving from awareness isn't a concept, it is the IS of our consciousness experience. Yes, for me to communicate it I have to conceptualize it in language in my mind but I'm not offering the concept, it's pointing to the IS of awareness perception.

From that perceptual IS of awareness the mind's concept of duality does not exist. So there is no this or that, X or Y, left or right, right or wrong, truth or illusion... none of it exists in awareness perception. It's not duality resolved into non-duality. A sunset and sunrise IS the same event, not opposite ones.

The dualism mindset perceives in binary conceptual paradigms, even the concept of resolving duality into nonduality or the concept of dissolving concepts is conceptually binary to it. It's perceiving what IS without the mind's conceptual duality instead of using the mind to dissolve the mind's conceptual paradigm.

It's awareness of what IS through pre-conceptualization perspective, so to speak.

Edited September 10, 2018 by SOUL

[Forestluv]

@SOUL Yep. It's so hard to describe with dualistic terms. I get what you are saying - I just use different words to try to explain the same thing.

For me, my nondual experiences have been from the "everything" perspective. All things lose their distinctions and everything is one. Yet there was still awareness present. Recently, I've had an experience from the "nothing" perspective. All things lost their distinctions and disappeared. There was nothing. Not even awareness (there was nothing to be aware of). Then, the first "thing" arose from the nothingness and awareness arose with it. I couldn't conceive of something prior to awareness. It was mindblowing.

 

[Leo Gura]

No!

That's the kicker!

Nonduality is not a paradigm. If it were, it would be duality, not nonduality.

You are making the mistake of confusing the map for the territory.

Just consider: for there to be a paradigm at all, there must exist something prior to the paradigm -- the substrate so to speak -- which itself is not a paradigm. That substrate must be inaccessible via thoughts because thoughts themselves are a 2nd order phenomena of the substrate.

Paradigms only occur at the level of thought. A paradigm IS a collection of thoughts. No thought, no paradigms. You can stop thinking an reality will still continue. But all paradigms will be destroyed.

[SOUL]

@Serotoninluv I guess once perceptual awareness was realized the notion of non-duality ceased to exist because. ......it doesn't.

[lmfao]

@Gligorije

8 hours ago, Gligorije said:

Isn't nonduality just another paradigm?

Probably. Only you can "work out" the implications of this and work out the "answer". 

Edited September 11, 2018 by lmfao

[Forestluv]

41 minutes ago, SOUL said:

@Serotoninluv I guess once perceptual awareness was realized the notion of non-duality ceased to exist because. ......it doesn't.

Yea. It was the one of the most bizarre realities I've ever experienced. I layed on the ground and I couldn't see, feel, hear, smell anything. No thoughts. There were no distinctions. Nothing. I remember seeing something arise from nothing. An amorphous, poorly defined something. There was awareness that was aware of it. Yet, what was there before there was a thing? It wasn't like awareness was sitting around being aware waiting for something to appear. I've never conceived of anything prior to awareness. I still don't know how to integrate it into such a limited mind-body. It doesn't make sense to me, yet there is a knowing of something I can't describe.

[SOUL]

2 hours ago, Serotoninluv said:

Yea. It was the one of the most bizarre realities I've ever experienced. I layed on the ground and I couldn't see, feel, hear, smell anything. No thoughts. There were no distinctions. Nothing. I remember seeing something arise from nothing. An amorphous, poorly defined something. There was awareness that was aware of it. Yet, what was there before there was a thing? It wasn't like awareness was sitting around being aware waiting for something to appear. I've never conceived of anything prior to awareness. I still don't know how to integrate it into such a limited mind-body. It doesn't make sense to me, yet there is a knowing of something I can't describe.

Something always coexisted with nothing, in now, they were so absolute in their existence that only when the manifest 'bloomed' was there a distinction to be perceived in awareness.

[Manjushri]

13 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

No!

That's the kicker!

Nonduality is not a paradigm. If it were, it would be duality, not nonduality.

You are making the mistake of confusing the map for the territory.

Just consider: for there to be a paradigm at all, there must exist something prior to the paradigm -- the substrate so to speak -- which itself is not a paradigm. That substrate must be inaccessible via thoughts because thoughts themselves are a 2nd order phenomena of the substrate.

Paradigms only occur at the level of thought. A paradigm IS a collection of thoughts. No thought, no paradigms. You can stop thinking an reality will still continue. But all paradigms will be destroyed.

So it isn't even non-duality? It's just 'mu'? 

[Mu_]

4 hours ago, Gligorije said:

So it isn't even non-duality? It's just 'mu'? 

no, I'm Mu, dont get it confused.

[Mu_]

18 hours ago, SOUL said:

I'm not offering a concept, awareness perception, or perceiving from awareness isn't a concept, it is the IS of our consciousness experience. Yes, for me to communicate it I have to conceptualize it in language in my mind but I'm not offering the concept, it's pointing to the IS of awareness perception.

From that perceptual IS of awareness the mind's concept of duality does not exist. So there is no this or that, X or Y, left or right, right or wrong, truth or illusion... none of it exists in awareness perception. It's not duality resolved into non-duality. A sunset and sunrise IS the same event, not opposite ones.

The dualism mindset perceives in binary conceptual paradigms, even the concept of resolving duality into nonduality or the concept of dissolving concepts is conceptually binary to it. It's perceiving what IS without the mind's conceptual duality instead of using the mind to dissolve the mind's conceptual paradigm.

It's awareness of what IS through pre-conceptualization perspective, so to speak.

I was in this loop of conception your trying to describe and claim to understand, and perhaps I'm diluted, But who's to say the IS you say your seeing from, before you put into concept, is IS.  These just sound like idea's.  No doubt your experiencing something, but the idea of knowing your coming from an absolute seeing of IS, is just an idea.  I mean I don't mean to scare you, but......

Edited September 11, 2018 by Mu_

[WindInTheLeaf]

3 hours ago, Gligorije said:

So it isn't even non-duality? It's just 'mu'? 

Imagine that you, as an 'I' of some sort (doesn't matter how we draw the lines and if we even agree on what 'I' really is), is floating in an ocean that is 'the other'(universe, consciousness, energy, spirit etc.). Now, you were in the ocean before you learned to swim, and you have had to find out how to by yourself. Naturally you have ended up deeply entangled in the ocean, that is you are deep underwater going in loops. You cannot remember when you were above the water, and you have just invented a way of swimming/being in the ocean that feels sort of right by 'winging it' and comparing yourself to other swimmers doing their thing and copying those who seem to have it all figured out while avoiding those who seems like they are drowning. The further below the surface the higher the force of the waters above, so naturally you would want to be as close to the surface as possible.

You might, at some point start realizing that 'I' and 'other', 'ocean' and 'not-ocean', are like to sides of the same thing, and that the more you struggle the more struggle you get. You may start to realize that the problems you try to solve are created mostly by yourself. The more problems you let go of the lighter you get, and start floating towards the surface. Every step along the way up is held back by the noise of the past, so that to reach total quietness and stillness that allows you to get to the surface, you'll have to go through a lifetime of misconceptions. All along the way you'll be pointed in the right direction, but the deeper you are the less light there'll naturally be, so the finger is often mistaken for that which is pointed to; the map gets mistaken for the territory. This is made much more difficult, as you have no idea which finger is the right one to follow, and everyone, those stuck in the same part of the whirlpool and those at higher levels, seem to think they know all there is to know. 

As you are in a sort of whirlpool, the way to the surface is like a spiral, where every step is a new loop that persists till it dissolves to make room for the next loop and so on until the surface is reached. The more movement of thought, the deeper down you'll be and the faster the whirlpool will spin. Every swimmer is stuck in their own kind of spiral, that is just a version of an 'arche-spiral' (the different colors of 'spiral dynamics'), that is a loop of thought. The closer to the surface the quieter the mind gets, and therefore the loops of thought gets harder to see through/spot. If every swimmer along the way, at every stage of the spiraling whirlpool, is basically holding himself there by attachment to a certain thought-loop that is founded by unresolved noise of the past, then someone at the surface, if he wishes, can dive down and step into that part of the whirlpool and attempt to dissolve the struggling swimmers thought-loop little by little. 

This is where the conceptual ideas of nonduality(nonduality is what we attempt to realize as it is essentially the surface we wish to reach) has their place. But one must recognize that different people needs to hear different things at different stages of their personal development. What is wise words to one may be foolish to another. Nonduality as an idea can be used to get people towards the surface, and show them the outlines of that nondual state on the other side, but it can never be reached as long as it is thought of. To reach it, to breach the surface and reach 'absolute truth', one must let go of thought about 'absolute truth'. You can never escape the whirlpool as long as you think, as the whirlpool is essentially thought.

[Mu_]

19 hours ago, Serotoninluv said:

The concepts the two of us are offering IS concepts the two of us are offering.

The challenge isn't the concept. The challenge is viewing a concept as a concept. 

The human mind loves to think X is Y. That's all we are doing here. You have one way of saying X is Y and I have another way of saying X is Y. The content of X and Y is irrelevant. How can X be Y?     X IS X and Y IS Y.

A concept of nonduality IS a concept of nonduality. A sunset IS a sunset. A thought about the meaning of life IS a thought about the meaning of life.

The human mind fixates on what is on the left and right side of IS. Yet, the key part is the IS. With time, that which is on the left and right side of IS dissolves and there is only IS. 

 

Hey, I don't know if I should be chime in here, but something that may be of interest in your search has to do with something you shared in your last sentence.  Again I agree for the most part with all of what was said in your conversation with SOUL, but with one subtlety.

"With time, that which is on the left and right side of IS dissolves and there is only IS"  Can the IS ever said to be realized from by any means "within/without", since really isn't IS the infinity of all perspectives/matter/everything which could never be seen from one experience?  I found within myself that there was still an idea that at some point IS would finally be realized, a static or changing something "within", or that at times I was some how seeing/being IS and had "realized", which was a relief because its not possible. Aren't All experiences changing, including any momentary or what feels like up to that point realizations (one that someones been having for say 5-10 years) that could change?

[SOUL]

1 hour ago, Mu_ said:

I was in this loop of conception your trying to describe and claim to understand, and perhaps I'm diluted, But who's to say the IS you say your seeing from, before you put into concept, is IS.  These just sound like idea's.  No doubt your experiencing something, but the idea of knowing your coming from an absolute seeing of IS, is just an idea.  I mean I don't mean to scare you, but......

Apparently you weren't in any "loop of conception" that I am describing because you misunderstand what I've said. I'm describing that awareness is the IS of our consciousness and perceive from that IS of awareness in viewing the rest of our consciousness from that IS of awareness.

Other expressions of our consciousness, like the self, ego and all the contents that fill consciousness like sensations, thoughts, concepts and the like are perceived by awareness. I was speaking primarily on consciousness but this awakening of awareness can be experienced exponentially in perception.

I didn't say anything about "knowing" I'm coming from "absolute seeing", those are your words and idea you are trying to inject into this and put on me. You could take a moment to contemplate what I said by awareness being the IS of our consciousness and not what you thought I said and maybe will clarify it.

Again I will reiterate that to communicate any of this I need to conceptualize it in language and undoubtedly some clarify is lost in the process. This is from my direct experience of it but your own experience may differ, there is no 'right' or 'wrong' in our experience of being, there just is.

Also, meditate on why you project any fear on the notion of hearing something differing because there is a reason why you brought that into it so......

Edited September 11, 2018 by SOUL

[WindInTheLeaf]

8 minutes ago, Mu_ said:

"With time, that which is on the left and right side of IS dissolves and there is only IS"  Can the IS ever said to be realized from by any means "within/without", since really isn't IS the infinity of all perspectives/matter/everything which could never be seen from one experience?

You raise a very important question. The absolute cannot be realized from any position.'Any position/experience of 'I' in relation to the absolute' isthe absolute, as i believe @Serotoninluv was saying. For 'the absolute' to be realized by thought, thought would have to know itself. This is impossible, like a hand trying to grasp itself or a painter trying to paint himself painting himself.... Any movement of thought is a movement of the absolute, and thus thought-about-absolute must seize for the absolute to be realized. But thought is not really a problem, as any loop of thought-about-absolute is the absolute being absolutely perfect - without lacking anything to make it 'better'. What is gained from less to no thought is a lightness of being.

 

[Mu_]

3 hours ago, WindInTheLeaf said:

You raise a very important question. The absolute cannot be realized from any position.'Any position/experience of 'I' in relation to the absolute' isthe absolute, as i believe @Serotoninluv was saying. For 'the absolute' to be realized by thought, thought would have to know itself. This is impossible, like a hand trying to grasp itself or a painter trying to paint himself painting himself.... Any movement of thought is a movement of the absolute, and thus thought-about-absolute must seize for the absolute to be realized. But thought is not really a problem, as any loop of thought-about-absolute is the absolute being absolutely perfect - without lacking anything to make it 'better'. What is gained from less to no thought is a lightness of being.

 

I think your right, what is gained is more lightness of being or any number of newnesses.  And your right there may be no need to realize.  I think serotoninluv was saying almost the same thing, minus the part I shared or perhaps the language was perceived differently on my end from what he meant it.

Edited September 11, 2018 by Mu_

[Mu_]

3 hours ago, SOUL said:

Apparently you weren't in any "loop of conception" that I am describing because you misunderstand what I've said. I'm describing that awareness is the IS of our consciousness and perceive from that IS of awareness in viewing the rest of our consciousness from that IS of awareness.

Other expressions of our consciousness, like the self, ego and all the contents that fill consciousness like sensations, thoughts, concepts and the like are perceived by awareness. I was speaking primarily on consciousness but this awakening of awareness can be experienced exponentially in perception.

I didn't say anything about "knowing" I'm coming from "absolute seeing", those are your words and idea you are trying to inject into this and put on me. You could take a moment to contemplate what I said by awareness being the IS of our consciousness and not what you thought I said and maybe will clarify it.

Again I will reiterate that to communicate any of this I need to conceptualize it in language and undoubtedly some clarify is lost in the process. This is from my direct experience of it but your own experience may differ, there is no 'right' or 'wrong' in our experience of being, there just is.

Also, meditate on why you project any fear on the notion of hearing something differing because there is a reason why you brought that into it so......

I have no bone to pick here friend.  If you feel as though your coming from an absolute view of IS, then thats your right, I respect that.  And if you feel as though I was coming from a place of fear in my comment to begin with then I respect that as well.  Maybe I was, I'm just not aware of it.

[Leo Gura]

9 hours ago, Gligorije said:

So it isn't even non-duality? It's just 'mu'? 

It is...

[Widdle Puppy]

it exists as a paradigm or belief until you are enlightened.

remember that our goal isn't to believe some belief more but to go beyond beliefs and embody what is greater. 

we are limited through verbal communication (it can't be communicated this way) and our ego so it will remain a belief and has been communicated as best it can as a belief but it is up to us to do the investigation and discover what is truly there for ourselves. 

[Mu_]

32 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

It is...

Thanks, I needed to hear that