Is nonduality the absolute or a contingent knowledge?

[Strannik]

1 minute ago, Devin said:

no, anything you 'know' by direct experience is an illusion, a concept

omg. OK, I quit  If this is what Leo teaches you and you believe that, then there is nothing I can do for you.

There is a famous materialist philosopher Daniel Dennett who claims that conscious experience is an illusion. Consciousness has amazing ability to fool itself, even to the extent of convincing itself that its direct conscious experience is unreal.  

[Devin]

20 minutes ago, Strannik said:

omg. OK, I quit  If this is what Leo teaches you and you believe that, then there is nothing I can do for you.

There is a famous materialist philosopher Daniel Dennett who claims that conscious experience is an illusion. Consciousness has amazing ability to fool itself, even to the extent of convincing itself that its direct conscious experience is unreal.  

i didn't say nor mean your experience isn't real, the problem is the 'knowing' 

I'm not regurgitating Leo's teachings either, I'm sure he wouldn't say what I'm saying

Edited December 11, 2022 by Devin

[Strannik]

4 hours ago, Devin said:

i didn't say nor mean your experience isn't real, the problem is the 'knowing' 

I'm not regurgitating Leo's teachings either, I'm sure he wouldn't say what I'm saying

As I said, conscious experience is by itself a kind of knowing, it's a "direct experiential knowing". Another kind is conceptual knowing. When we overlay conceptual knowing on the experiential one, we fabricate a distorted perception of reality that can be called an "illusion". For example, when we just look at a picture of a witch without any conceptualizing of it, we directly experience just qualia of shapes and colors. But we can also imagine that there is a "real witch existing out there" and unconsciously overlay this imagination over the qualia of the direct experience, and start seeing a "real witch out there" and believe that it is real, this is how mind creates illusions and false beliefs. Mystical experience is simply stopping experiencing qualia through a lens of imaginations and concepts and becoming to experience qualia directly as they are experienced here and now, as well as experiencing any arising thoughts or imaginations simply as another kind of qualia present in the experience without believing in absolute truthfulness of their conceptual content and without experiencing qualia "through a lens" of their conceptual content. When we experience reality in such direct way, the reality is experienced as an unbreakable wholeness of a clearly present and clearly awared flow of qualia here and now. That is how we can completely break free from any illusions or beliefs (=liberation=moksha). 

However, it often happens that a person, after experiencing such undifferentiated state, especially when fueled by psychedelic experiences, re-interprets it through conceptual analysis, and creates a bunch of new thought forms through which lens they start filtering the direct experience, such as "I am Awareness", "I am Infinite Absolute God Consciousness", "Consciousness is all there is" etc, without realizing that this is simply replacing one set of filtering conceptual imaginative thoughts (like "I am a human person in a human body", "there is an external material world outside me" etc) with another set. It usually does improve the quality of life and removes most of the psychological suffering, but essentially it's just consciousness continuing fooling itself, only in a more functional way. Real liberation is stopping filtering or interpreting the direct experience through any conceptual or imaginative content completely. 

 

Edited December 12, 2022 by Strannik

[Devin]

2 hours ago, Strannik said:

As I said, conscious experience is by itself a kind of knowing, it's a "direct experiential knowing". Another kind is conceptual knowing. When we overlay conceptual knowing on the experiential one, we fabricate a distorted perception of reality that can be called an "illusion". For example, when we just look at a picture of a witch without any conceptualizing of it, we directly experience just qualia of shapes and colors. But we can also imagine that there is a "real witch existing out there" and unconsciously overlay this imagination over the qualia of the direct experience, and start seeing a "real witch out there" and believe that it is real, this is how mind creates illusions and false beliefs. Mystical experience is simply stopping experiencing qualia through a lens of imaginations and concepts and becoming to experience qualia directly as they are experienced here and now, as well as experiencing any arising thoughts or imaginations simply as another kind of qualia present in the experience without believing in absolute truthfulness of their conceptual content and without experiencing qualia "through a lens" of their conceptual content. That is how we can completely break free from any illusions or beliefs (=liberation=moksha). 

conscious experience would be the absence of any knowing(or knowing everything depending on how you want to say it) not a kind of knowing. I think you have it pretty much backwards, you're believing a concept of consciousness

Edited December 11, 2022 by Devin

[Strannik]

2 minutes ago, Devin said:

conscious experience would be the absence of any knowing(or knowing everything depending on how you want to say it) not a kind of knowing. I think you have it pretty much backwards

Unfortunately you seem to have no clue what I'm talking about

[Devin]

33 minutes ago, Strannik said:

Unfortunately you seem to have no clue what I'm talking about

it seems pretty clear to me you're talking about direct experience, not consciousness

[Devin]

@Strannik "conscious experience is a type of knowing, direct experiential knowing"

would saying this be the same thing "conscious experience(being) is having no knowing(concepts/beliefs)"?

Edited December 12, 2022 by Devin

[Strannik]

1 hour ago, Devin said:

it seems pretty clear to me you're talking about direct experience, not consciousness

OK, let me repeat again:

"What we actually know in our direct conscious experience is only a flow of qualia/phenomena present here and now inseparable from the "isness/presence" and conscious awareness of them." We label this bare fact with the word "Consciousness".

So, "consciousness", as per the definition above, is the same as conscious experience. 

1 hour ago, Devin said:

@Strannik "conscious experience is a type of knowing, direct experiential knowing"

would saying this be the same thing "conscious experience(being) is having no knowing(concepts/beliefs)"?

Knowing through concepts/beliefs is always part of the "flow of qualia/phenomena present here and now", because all concepts/beliefs are simply qualia of though-forms, just like other qualia like sensations, feelings, etc. They are never actually separate from the direct experience of the flow of qualia. But what usually happens is that we take the conceptual content of those though-forms and confuse them with reality. In other words, we believe that the conceptual content of those thought forms is reality itself, and then we "filter" the direct experience of the flow of qualia "through" these concepts, which completely distorts the reality of direct experience shaping it into illusion. Example: typical humans have a persistent though-form "I am a human person, a separate self, living in the external material world" and they unconsciously believe that it is absolutely true, so they unconsciously re-interpret their flow of qualia "through" a lens of this imaginative thought-form, and that creates the dualistic illusion. 

So, there is nothing wrong with having thoughts containing all sorts of concepts, we need them in our everyday life. We can have a state of absence of concepts and thoughts in a meditative experience, but it is difficult to maintain it in the everyday life. But that's not a problem. The problem is when we believe by default that the concepts of those thoughts are absolutely true and when we "filter" and interpret the direct conscious experience of the flow of qualia "through" these concepts, or in other words, "overlay" these concepts on the bare flow of qualia. Once we realize that these though forms are simply qualia and an inseparable part of the totality of the flow of qualia, and stop filtering the flow of qualia through the concepts of those thoughts, then they become harmless and we liberate our conscious experience from the delusional power of these concepts and start experiencing reality directly as it is given without filtering it through any concepts. In practice it is easier said than done and requires a radical change in the way we perceive the reality and continuous mindfulness to maintain this state. We usually have a lot of these unconscious and unrecognized concepts filtering our experience and it takes quite a lot of work and enquiry to uncover them and become aware of them until none of them remain in our blind spots. Even though the realization of this simple fact (of the presence-awareness of the direct conscious experience of the flow of qualia) may happen instantly (which is usually called "awakening"), it usually takes many years of persistent practice until this state becomes continuous, effortless and natural (which is called "full liberation/realization"). At first this state may feel like a "mystical experience" as compared to our mundane state of dualistic perception, but over time it becomes so natural that there is nothing "mystical" in it anymore.   

Edited December 12, 2022 by Strannik

[Devin]

24 minutes ago, Strannik said:

OK, let me repeat again:

"What we actually know in our direct conscious experience is only a flow of qualia/phenomena present here and now inseparable from the "isness/presence" and conscious awareness of them." We label this bare fact with the word "Consciousness".

So, "consciousness", as per the definition above, is the same as conscious experience. 

Knowing through concepts/beliefs is always part of the "flow of qualia/phenomena present here and now", because all concepts/beliefs are simply qualia of though-forms, just like other qualia like sensations, feelings, etc. They are never actually separate from the direct experience of the flow of qualia. But what usually happens is that we take the conceptual content of those though-forms and confuse them with reality. In other words, we believe that the conceptual content of those thought forms is reality itself, and then we "filter" the direct experience of the flow of qualia "through" these concepts, which completely distorts the reality of direct experience shaping it into illusion. Example: typical humans have a persistent though-form "I am a human person, a separate self, living in the external material world" and they unconsciously believe that it is absolutely true, so they unconsciously re-interpret their flow of qualia "through" a lens of this imaginative thought-form, and that creates the dualistic illusion. 

So, there is nothing wrong with having thoughts containing all sorts of concepts, we need them in our everyday life. We can have a state of absence of concepts and thoughts in a meditative experience, but it is difficult to maintain it in the everyday life. But that's not a problem. The problem is when we believe by default that the concepts of those thoughts are absolutely true and when we "filter" and interpret the direct conscious experience of the flow of qualia "through" these concepts, or in other words, "overlay" these concepts on the bare flow of qualia. Once we realize that these though forms are simply qualia and an inseparable part of the totality of the flow of qualia, and stop filtering the flow of qualia through the concepts of those thoughts, then they become harmless and we liberate our conscious experience from the delusional power of these concepts and start experiencing reality directly as it is given without filtering it through any concepts. In practice it is easier said than done and requires a radical change in the way we perceive the reality and continuous mindfulness to maintain this state. We usually have a lot of these unconscious and unrecognized concepts filtering our experience and it takes quite a lot of work and enquiry to uncover them and become aware of them until none of them remain in our blind spots. It usually takes many years of persistent practice until this state becomes continuous, effortless and natural.  

we disagree on the definition of consciousness but I'll set that aside, I've stated my grievance on that.

 

here are some beliefs/concepts in this post you appear to be unaware of

-you say the concepts become harmless. How are they harmful? 

-you say we need concepts in our everyday life. How do you know what will happen if we don't use concepts, you believe or conceptualize something will happen

 

i think you're stuck in concepts and beliefs, thinking they are true, even though you're saying not to.

Edited December 12, 2022 by Devin

[Strannik]

Just now, Devin said:

we disagree on the definition of consciousness but I'll set that aside, I've stated my grievance on that.

It's a matter of definition, which is just a word game

Quote

-you say the concepts become harmless. How are they harmful? 

Example: typical humans have a persistent though-form "I am a human person, a separate self, living in the external material world" and they unconsciously believe that it is absolutely true. As a consequence, they develop the ego-complex and they experience fear of death, they suffer from all kinds of psychological issues (anxiety, fears, depressions), they pursue useless goals in life etc. This is how this thought form can become practically harmful. 

Quote

-you say we need concepts in our everyday life. How do you know what will happen if we don't use concepts, you believe or conceptualize something will happen

Example: our language is essentially a collection of concepts. If we would not use these linguistic concepts, we would not be able to communicate. 

[Devin]

11 minutes ago, Strannik said:

It's a matter of definition, which is just a word game

Example: typical humans have a persistent though-form "I am a human person, a separate self, living in the external material world" and they unconsciously believe that it is absolutely true. As a consequence, they develop the ego-complex and they experience fear of death, they suffer from all kinds of psychological issues (anxiety, fears, depressions), they pursue useless goals in life etc. This is how this thought form can become practically harmful. 

Example: our language is essentially a collection of concepts. If we would not use these linguistic concepts, we would not be able to communicate. 

our consciousness definition discrepancies are FAR from a word game, our definitions are almost completely opposite

 

both of your examples are concepts/beliefs that you believe are true

#1-why is that 'harmful'?

#2-how do you know there even is communication?

Edited December 12, 2022 by Devin

[Strannik]

27 minutes ago, Devin said:

both of your examples are concepts/beliefs that you believe are true

#1-why is that 'harmful'?

#2-how do you know there even is communication?

Concepts can be contingently true in a practical sense. 

#1 when you really suffer and realize that it was caused by some concept that you believed to be true, you realize that it is "harmful" in a sense that if you would stop believing it, you suffering would also go away.

#2 I'm not a single-person-mind solipsist

Sorry, I have to stop this discussion, it went too far off-topic (and actually became a trolling...)

Edited December 12, 2022 by Strannik

[Devin]

10 minutes ago, Strannik said:

Concepts can be contingently true in a practical sense. 

#1 when you really suffer and realize that it was caused by some concept that you believed to be true, you realize that it is "harmful" in a sense that if you would stop believing it, you suffering would also go away.

#2 I'm not a single-person-mind solipsist

Sorry, I have to stop this discussion, it went too far off-topic (and actually became a trolling...)

okay, but suffering is a concept, along with solipsism, and communication

[Strannik]

33 minutes ago, Devin said:

okay, but suffering is a concept, along with solipsism, and communication

so what? I never said that there is anything wrong with concepts, the problem is only when we believe them as absolute truths and confuse them with reality. But there is nothing wrong with using them as contingent truths and practical cognitive tools. 

Edited December 12, 2022 by Strannik

[Carl-Richard]

9 hours ago, Strannik said:

If we don't know what kind of reality exists beyond experience, then we also don't know what can limit the experience. But the fact that we do not know it does not necessarily mean that it does not exist. 

I'm repeating again an analogy. Suppose that some creatures exist in 2D space, so all they can possibly experience is the 2D space. For them their experience within 2D is unlimited in 2-dimensions, they can move anywhere within 2D and find no boundaries. But they simply have no concept and no way to experience anything beyond that 2D. But in reality that 2D plain is contained within a 3D space and so it is indeed unlimited in its 2D, but still limited in 3D by its own surface. The takeaway is that if some reality is unlimited within its own domain, that does not necessarily mean that nothing can exist beyond its domain.   

What I'm saying is that you can't create multiple dimensions without first starting with one dimension. That one dimension is formlessness. For anything to be outside of our dimension, it must already be made out of the same stuff that we refer to as direct experience (or the most fundamental aspect of it; formlessness). To say that the most fundamental aspect of this allegedly inaccessible thing is actually inaccessible to us, is false. Only if you make that thing a form, it can become inaccessible to another form. Formlessness cannot be inaccessible. It precedes all relational qualities.

[Leo Gura]

@Strannik Dude, please stop with the gaslighting already. You ain't Awake.

[Devin]

8 hours ago, Strannik said:

so what? I never said that there is anything wrong with concepts, the problem is only when we believe them as absolute truths and confuse them with reality. But there is nothing wrong with using them as contingent truths and practical cognitive tools. 

to me you're sounding very contradictory , you say this below

10 hours ago, Strannik said:

 

 But what usually happens is that we take the conceptual content of those though-forms and confuse them with reality. In other words, we believe that the conceptual content of those thought forms is reality itself, and then we "filter" the direct experience of the flow of qualia "through" these concepts, which completely distorts the reality of direct experience shaping it into illusion.  
 

and then state concepts as reality, to me it's evident you're doing what you call "confusing conceptual content with reality" i just figured you'd appreciate it if i pointed out possible 'blind spots', as you call them

and this makes what your saying not make much sense to me, you state something as not to do, but then you do it in the next sentence. Again, to me it's like you're superimposing one belief over another, switching back and forth mid thought, I'm just pointing out inconsistencies that i believe are what is confusing me about what you're saying.

Edited December 12, 2022 by Devin

[Strannik]

8 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

What I'm saying is that you can't create multiple dimensions without first starting with one dimension. That one dimension is formlessness. For anything to be outside of our dimension, it must already be made out of the same stuff that we refer to as direct experience (or the most fundamental aspect of it; formlessness). To say that the most fundamental aspect of this allegedly inaccessible thing is actually inaccessible to us, is false. Only if you make that thing a form, it can become inaccessible to another form. Formlessness cannot be inaccessible. It precedes all relational qualities.

I know, I myself went through all these arguments before, they sound very logical, but only providing that classical logic applies to ontology, which may or may not be true. If formlessness precedes all relational qualities, then it also precedes logic. As I said, it's like trying to prove the existence of God with logical arguments that medieval theologists tried to do. But if you want to convince yourself that there is nothing ontologically prior to formless awareness, or just believe in it like people believe in God because it is comfortable for them, you are free to do so. You will just be limiting your freedom, trading freedom for comfort, that's all. 

[Strannik]

Basically, Leo's teaching is a version of neo-advaita, which is essentially classical Advaita stripped from Indian cultural baggage and presented in modern language, with some psychedelic stuff added as a bonus. But historically, Advaita is not the only approach to nonduality, there was also Buddhism, Zen in particular as one of its pinnacles, that approaches nonduality from quite a different angle, and that is what I'm trying to vocalize here, also presenting it in modern philosophical language. The fierce dispute between Buddhism and Advaita went for 1500 yrs in India until Buddhism was eradicated from India by Moslems, but it revealed all practical and philosophical details of the differences in their approaches to nonduality. I just encourage people not to limit themselves to Advaita only, but stay open and explore other approaches to nonduality. I am myself a long time practitioner of both approaches, so I was able to compare them from both practical and philosophical perspectives. I found that Advaita works well enough, but the Buddhist approach leaves more freedom and opens more dimensions for liberation. Advaita is still a religion (albeit a good one), while Zen is beyond any religion.

Edited December 12, 2022 by Strannik

[Strannik]

7 minutes ago, Strannik said:

 

 

Edited December 12, 2022 by Strannik