Non-Duality is terrifying

[Sy Borg]

Consul, no way, man! I'm pretty sure Einstein's equation says that the number of Elephants in a room equals Morality times Confirmation bias squared.

Or - and this is a pretty wild idea, but hear me out - Einstein's equation might just show us the relationship of energy to matter, that energy can be turned into matter via fusion and matter can be turned into energy by fission. Thus, energy and matter are fundamentally the same, being either in diffuse or compressed form.

If energy and matter are fundamentally the same (which I think is obviously the case), then it makes no sense to me to treat energy in a special way (like it was more fundamental or something), and say that without energy, there is no matter.

Some people could say the opposite, that therefore matter is special, and without matter, there is no energy.

I think some people rather go with the first one though (without energy, there is no matter) because energy is such a fascinating, ethereal, hard-to-pin-down concept compared to matter.

I think there is a valid case for treating energy as more fundamental, that does not rely on energy's mystique. In the very early universe there was only energy that was too hot for matter to form. To be fair, at that point the stuff of the universe was so strange that, as we learn more, such states that "break relativity" might be considered as neither matter nor energy, but something different again.

[Atla]

Clear definitions or descriptions of Eastern/Buddhist nondualism are very hard to come by. Here's one that isn't very clear:

"nondualism: the view that reality is actually one (not composed of separate entities), that the usual dualisms of mind/body, good/evil, self/other, active/passive are superficial judgments of convenience. Nondual reality is emptiness, nothingness."

(Carter, Robert E. The Kyoto School: An Introduction. New York: SUNY Press, 2013. p. 178)

Looks like a bad definition, in nondualism proper the existence of fundamental dualisms is denied. Buddhism tends to be a mixture of great insights and funny delusions imo.

For example mind/body as a fundamental metaphysical split is denied, but we can still say that the human mind is a part of the human body, more or less located somewhere in the head, but the mind and body are the "same kind of thing".

Good/evil is totally a subjective judgement, not a fundamental dualism. Active/passive is also not a fundamental dualism.

Self/other is a hidden fundamental metaphysical split that forms the basis of Western thinking, the illusion of the individual I (ego, consciousness). This split is denied, so there is only "once fundamental consciousness". However in nondualism proper the differences are of course also recognized, so Atla's psychological human self is totally not the same thing as Consul's psychological human self, the individual human mind in the individual human body.

[Belindi]

Clear definitions or descriptions of Eastern/Buddhist nondualism are very hard to come by. Here's one that isn't very clear:

"nondualism: the view that reality is actually one (not composed of separate entities), that the usual dualisms of mind/body, good/evil, self/other, active/passive are superficial judgments of convenience. Nondual reality is emptiness, nothingness."

(Carter, Robert E. The Kyoto School: An Introduction. New York: SUNY Press, 2013. p. 178)

Looks like a bad definition, in nondualism proper the existence of fundamental dualisms is denied. Buddhism tends to be a mixture of great insights and funny delusions imo.

For example mind/body as a fundamental metaphysical split is denied, but we can still say that the human mind is a part of the human body, more or less located somewhere in the head, but the mind and body are the "same kind of thing".

Good/evil is totally a subjective judgement, not a fundamental dualism. Active/passive is also not a fundamental dualism.

Self/other is a hidden fundamental metaphysical split that forms the basis of Western thinking, the illusion of the individual I (ego, consciousness). This split is denied, so there is only "once fundamental consciousness". However in nondualism proper the differences are of course also recognized, so Atla's psychological human self is totally not the same thing as Consul's psychological human self, the individual human mind in the individual human body.

The relative world is where each person (including other conscious animals) experiences being immersed in. It is also a matter of fact that we cannot experience absolute mind, absolute good, absolute evil or absolute anything. Neither can we experience non- conscious furniture of the world as it is in itself, i.e. apart from what individuals are conscious of.

There is no need to disbelieve in the existence of the absolute simply because we don't experience it except by analogies such as are sometimes found in works of art, or sacred geometry.The subject/object divide would have no meaning for us unless we could also imagine the absolute wholeness.

Idealism(where mind is the basis of reality)and neutral monism are the ontologies that support the concept of absolute mind. Fortunately neutral monism is the ontology believed in by many scientists. The mind is not "in" the body: the mind is what causes conscious subjects to experience extended matter (such as the body).

[Atla]

Clear definitions or descriptions of Eastern/Buddhist nondualism are very hard to come by. Here's one that isn't very clear:

"nondualism: the view that reality is actually one (not composed of separate entities), that the usual dualisms of mind/body, good/evil, self/other, active/passive are superficial judgments of convenience. Nondual reality is emptiness, nothingness."

(Carter, Robert E. The Kyoto School: An Introduction. New York: SUNY Press, 2013. p. 178)

Looks like a bad definition, in nondualism proper the existence of fundamental dualisms is denied. Buddhism tends to be a mixture of great insights and funny delusions imo.

For example mind/body as a fundamental metaphysical split is denied, but we can still say that the human mind is a part of the human body, more or less located somewhere in the head, but the mind and body are the "same kind of thing".

Good/evil is totally a subjective judgement, not a fundamental dualism. Active/passive is also not a fundamental dualism.

Self/other is a hidden fundamental metaphysical split that forms the basis of Western thinking, the illusion of the individual I (ego, consciousness). This split is denied, so there is only "once fundamental consciousness". However in nondualism proper the differences are of course also recognized, so Atla's psychological human self is totally not the same thing as Consul's psychological human self, the individual human mind in the individual human body.

I mean, now that I think about it, some people are so disconnected from reality that they may even see good vs evil or active vs passive as genuine, objectively existing dualisms, and not as subjective/relative views/judgments.
In that case, of course these dualism are denied as well, but obviously most good philosophies already contain this, it's not limited to nondualism.

[stevie]

I begin by saying that possibly not everyone will understand this, because of the complexity of putting to words non-dual ideas by dualistic ideas (Language). Understand that proposing a separation between Duality and Non-duality is already a dualistic notion of the mind. So bear with me the complexity of the matter, and sorry if I contradict myself in anyway.

I just truly discovered this notion of "wholeness", "unity" or "oneness" from non-duality. This idea is very frightening for me, because it collapses my experience of reality. Awareness is all that there is, every other thing is a mind-created concept. I will not explain non-duality in depth and the big metaphysical implications of it as it is still a very fresh idea that is nurturing my mind. I will just ponder of the ideas that have entered my mind, and are intelligible as of now. So, Non-Duality is awareness itself. There is no separation of ego/thought or object/subject. Precisely because experience is all it is, and experience IS consciousness. There is no experiential state if there is no awareness, therefore "being" is all there truly is. This is without having this "I" that is assumed to be doing the experiencing. For some this mystical ego-transcendence is beautiful, because of the divine nature of it(How this pure state of awareness feels). And also because it is the ultimate truth. It is the true nature of nature. Duality is the greatest enemy to non-duality (Obviously). But get this, in order to reach non-duality you MUST purge the duality of the mind. So, having a firmly dualistic mind will not comprehend this in any way. Because non-duality is experienced, it is not known by a rational explanation. For the explanation of it is dualistic in nature, because language is dualistic and always implies separation. People engage in meditation to reach this perceptual change of awareness.

My biggest fear is knowing that everything I have experienced up until now has been an illusion. A product of the mind's intrinsic tendency to dualism. Everything seems false, nothing is real. Truth is just one. Up until now my philosophical "truths"(Or any thought of that matter) have been dualistic. So, I reach some sort of existential crisis or nihilistic crisis in nature. Not only that, but all of my dreams, hopes, my personal realizations are far from truth. Any meaning becomes meaningless. It is not worth living for something at it is just a concept, a construct of the mind that separates me and true reality. In a crude way, it is all fake. I can't even think without separation so it troubles me more.

I seem to be on the brink of death speaking about these troubling thoughts. For now, everything seems bearable. But I don't know where I will end up if this destroys me. Any thoughts to this?

It seems you are trying to square the circle. It is as you say: trying to express yourself you're already doomed. Every conceptual expression depends on its opposite. (Expression of) life [consciousness] is duality. Cessation of life [consciousness] is non-duality where 'non-duality' is merely the absence of duality but not its opposite.
Funnily you have started this thread in the 'Epistemology and Metaphysics' section of this forum ... what might be farer from 'Epistemology and Metaphysics' than what you are after?

[anni]

The Thread is a bit older, but I find it very interesting, so maybe you will like to discuss.

with (awakening into) Enlightenment/unconditional Love

Unconditional love has strictly speaking nothing to do with awakening. Do you realize how nonsensical that belief is? Do you understand what emotions are? Have you seen an awake sociopath? Do you understand that there is nothing "extra" to experience about the Absolute, even if some Eastern philosophies/religions claim so?
[/quote]


Might that be just a linguistic question?
Awakening has nothing to do with emotions, I agree.

But I understand the term unconditional love more that is the "feeling" of unitiy, of non seperatness. And in my experience there is a intellectual understanding (which you describe quite well), but also a more "embodied feeling" of it.

The other thing, I am quite often thinking about is, is the relation of the personality structure with awakening.
These things are quite tricky to write about, because, as we know, there is no person, and therefore also not a personality structure. At least on the absolut level.

But on the relativ level, there is a personality structure, which is of course a construct and which constructs itself usually in the childhood, by introjection of the environment, mother, father etc.

Anyway, I would like to add two quotes of Nisargadatta ("Prior to counsciousness")

"The seeking itself is God. In seeking you discover that you are neither body nor mind, but the love of the self in you for the self in all. The two are one. The consciousness in you and the consciousness in me, apparently two, really one, seek unity, and that is love."

"The breeze that comes out of the universal consciousness is what keeps other kinds of love alive. Most people limit their love to an in-dividual. "

So, there seem to be somehow also an outcome on the relativ level - at least how I understand it?

And that touches something you also wrote about it. The construction of meaning. How can we (re)construct meaning, when we understand, that there is nothing seperate and it is all a kind of play on the screen.

For me, on a personal level, there is this strong sense of meaning, when there is mutual love, harmonie and understanding between people- everything else seems to be total meaningless.

So, I wonder, is that just my personality structure or hat this to do something with the non dual understanding?

I would be happy to exchange about these things.

[Atla]

The Thread is a bit older, but I find it very interesting, so maybe you will like to discuss.

with (awakening into) Enlightenment/unconditional Love

Unconditional love has strictly speaking nothing to do with awakening. Do you realize how nonsensical that belief is? Do you understand what emotions are? Have you seen an awake sociopath? Do you understand that there is nothing "extra" to experience about the Absolute, even if some Eastern philosophies/religions claim so?

Might that be just a linguistic question?
Awakening has nothing to do with emotions, I agree.

But I understand the term unconditional love more that is the "feeling" of unitiy, of non seperatness. And in my experience there is a intellectual understanding (which you describe quite well), but also a more "embodied feeling" of it.

The other thing, I am quite often thinking about is, is the relation of the personality structure with awakening.
These things are quite tricky to write about, because, as we know, there is no person, and therefore also not a personality structure. At least on the absolut level.

But on the relativ level, there is a personality structure, which is of course a construct and which constructs itself usually in the childhood, by introjection of the environment, mother, father etc.

Anyway, I would like to add two quotes of Nisargadatta ("Prior to counsciousness")

"The seeking itself is God. In seeking you discover that you are neither body nor mind, but the love of the self in you for the self in all. The two are one. The consciousness in you and the consciousness in me, apparently two, really one, seek unity, and that is love."

"The breeze that comes out of the universal consciousness is what keeps other kinds of love alive. Most people limit their love to an in-dividual. "

So, there seem to be somehow also an outcome on the relativ level - at least how I understand it?

And that touches something you also wrote about it. The construction of meaning. How can we (re)construct meaning, when we understand, that there is nothing seperate and it is all a kind of play on the screen.

For me, on a personal level, there is this strong sense of meaning, when there is mutual love, harmonie and understanding between people- everything else seems to be total meaningless.

So, I wonder, is that just my personality structure or hat this to do something with the non dual understanding?

I would be happy to exchange about these things.

Unfortunately in my experience, upon further investigation this "embodied feeling" of non-separateness turns out to be illusory too. By that I mean that a blissful feeling does indeed exist, but it's not what these Eastern philosophies think it is. This is rather grim news, but philosophy is often a grim exercise.

People get "enlightened"/"awaken" and then usually become very blissful for a few days and weeks, then the bliss gradually diminishes but settles on a higher base level than before. So "enlightened" people are usually happier. But I think that this is simply how the natural state of the human mind feels. This is the normal level of blissfullness, but when at an early age we developed the ego, this got suppressed, life became darker. Then we don't understand how we were so happy in early childhood. But then when people get "enlightened" and the ego is deconstructed and falls apart, they suddenly return to this natural state, the suppression is gone.

So this doesn't mean that there is a universal being-like consciousness that feels like bliss. The universal consciousness doesn't feel like anything. It can also be pointless to spend decades doing deep meditation: all we can achieve is feel the bliss of our own minds more strongly, but we could be doing much more interesting things instead. People can also learn to have this bliss with them outside meditation anyway.

Furthermore, LOVE for another is an interpersonal emotion and this "unconditional love bliss" is just a solitary thing.

(the way I see it)

[anni]

Thanks for your reply.

I experienced that bliss too, for months. And I met quite a few people who experienced it as well, but usually for shorter periods.
So I also doubt that bliss= awakening. And actually thats what most of the teachers I listened said: That bliss is just a state, and awakening is not about having blissful states.
But this bliss was wonderful, and as you said it feld somehow like beeing a child again (noch childish!), everythink felt interconnected, very alive, I somehow stopped thinking a lot (without an effort, and without meditation!) I lived more from my heart. And I also agree on what you said here about the early stage bevor we developed an ego.


But than the bliss stopped, for me it was rather suddenly.

What remains is an intellectual knowledge, something subtle in the background.

But I still have the feeling there is something missing.

Thats why I am not so sure about the embodyment. I think there are different oppinions about that. As I know (but I am not an expert on this), the "traditional" advaita teachings focus on intellectual understanding.

But there are other tradition which focus more on the body- I think that for instance yoga exercises are created for that, but again, I am not an expert.

But as you explain it, I get the feeling it is "only" philosophy? And as you said (I also agree on this), this philosophy explains so many things much better, then our western philosophy does. There are a lot of thinks which suddenly make much more sense.

But is it really "only" philosophy?

And why then the meditation practices? Hm... Somehow I have a litte doubt around that. But I cannot realy put my finger on what it is, what bothers me here...

[anni]

Sorry for the spelling mistakes. English is not my native language and am not so good at writing it.

[Atla]

Thanks for your reply.

I experienced that bliss too, for months. And I met quite a few people who experienced it as well, but usually for shorter periods.
So I also doubt that bliss= awakening. And actually thats what most of the teachers I listened said: That bliss is just a state, and awakening is not about having blissful states.
But this bliss was wonderful, and as you said it feld somehow like beeing a child again (noch childish!), everythink felt interconnected, very alive, I somehow stopped thinking a lot (without an effort, and without meditation!) I lived more from my heart. And I also agree on what you said here about the early stage bevor we developed an ego.


But than the bliss stopped, for me it was rather suddenly.

What remains is an intellectual knowledge, something subtle in the background.

But I still have the feeling there is something missing.

Thats why I am not so sure about the embodyment. I think there are different oppinions about that. As I know (but I am not an expert on this), the "traditional" advaita teachings focus on intellectual understanding.

But there are other tradition which focus more on the body- I think that for instance yoga exercises are created for that, but again, I am not an expert.

But as you explain it, I get the feeling it is "only" philosophy? And as you said (I also agree on this), this philosophy explains so many things much better, then our western philosophy does. There are a lot of thinks which suddenly make much more sense.

But is it really "only" philosophy?

And why then the meditation practices? Hm... Somehow I have a litte doubt around that. But I cannot realy put my finger on what it is, what bothers me here...

I've been wondering the same thing, well if something is still missing here, then for a decade I haven't been able to find anyone who was able to tell me what that something is. Total non-thinking - no. End of rebirth - no, because there is no such thing as rebirth to begin with. Karma points - again no such thing. Prolonged meditation - no, what's even the point of that, they want to commit to being antisocial?

Though I'd say non-separateness by itself isn't the main insight here. It's the implication of non-separateness on who and what we truly are. We really are the world, existence itself, that's the true nature of consciousness. And within that is our individual mind, the personal consciousness, with the illusory "I" but ultimately that's not all we are. "tat tvam asi" and all that.

Some people realize non-separateness and get the bliss, but these implications don't really hit them, it's possible to have partial awakenings, don't know how far you went.

[anni]

"Some people realize non-separateness and get the bliss, but these implications don't really hit them, it's possible to have partial awakenings, don't know how far you went."

Well, thats what I' m wondering too. How far did I go, and how do you "measure" it and what is there further out?

I really dont know and unfortunatly there are not so many people to aks.

If you like, maybe you can write something about that from your experience?

In this bliss state, I really "felt" this non-seperatness, it was like: I am still anni, but I am also everything and everyone...

But I guess it was'nt a complete destruction of the ego, just a partial one.... As now I feel it has itself reconstructet, apart from this subtle knowledge in the background.

And in everyday life, I also keep forgetting it. So it seems to me more like an intellectual knowledge. I guess, one difficult thing, as you also mentioned is that we live in a society where almost everybody believes in duality, so I find it difficult to not go back to that believe. As you said, it feels a bit like splitting yourself and for me, its not such a pleasant condition....So I guess it creates a state of cognitive dissonance, which the mind tries to escape...
Its different, when I got to non duality retreats, and so I think, I still "need" them to remind me...

BTW: I also resonate with what your wrote about better understandig animals. Before, I did'nt really understand, what an animial is, so to speak.

[anni]

"Total non-thinking - no. End of rebirth - no, because there is no such thing as rebirth to begin with. Karma points - again no such thing. Prolonged meditation - no, what's even the point of that, they want to commit to being antisocial?"

I also to think, that such things as karma and end rebirth is just another idea or believe system created around this.

Total non thinking - also no, because then - in my view- you would become an idiot.

But maybe it is not getting lost in thinking, not taking your thoughts so seriously? And maybe thats the point of meditation?

Because I do still get lost in thoughts.

[Atla]

"Some people realize non-separateness and get the bliss, but these implications don't really hit them, it's possible to have partial awakenings, don't know how far you went."

Well, thats what I' m wondering too. How far did I go, and how do you "measure" it and what is there further out?

I really dont know and unfortunatly there are not so many people to aks.

If you like, maybe you can write something about that from your experience?

In this bliss state, I really "felt" this non-seperatness, it was like: I am still anni, but I am also everything and everyone...

But I guess it was'nt a complete destruction of the ego, just a partial one.... As now I feel it has itself reconstructet, apart from this subtle knowledge in the background.

And in everyday life, I also keep forgetting it. So it seems to me more like an intellectual knowledge. I guess, one difficult thing, as you also mentioned is that we live in a society where almost everybody believes in duality, so I find it difficult to not go back to that believe. As you said, it feels a bit like splitting yourself and for me, its not such a pleasant condition....So I guess it creates a state of cognitive dissonance, which the mind tries to escape...
Its different, when I got to non duality retreats, and so I think, I still "need" them to remind me...

BTW: I also resonate with what your wrote about better understandig animals. Before, I did'nt really understand, what an animial is, so to speak.

That's how it should be, for a short time the ego was completely gone but then it gets reconstructed and we return to some simpler version of the ego-ic existence. But this time with the permanent knowledge of our "true nature" added to it. Kinda like living in two different worlds that are one and the same world, living as the genuine fake, best of both worlds.

There seem to be some versions of Buddhism that teach that the ego has to go permanently. But respectfully, those people are insane. You just can't return like that to everyday life, especially not in the West. Nor is there a reson to discard the ego for good, now that you've seen through it.

I think the most difficult part is that now we have this totally different way of looking at life, and probably the correct way, but no one else around knows anything about it. We want to tell them about it but that's just not possible. I got used to this "double-life" now though, it doesn't bother me much anymore, I wouldn't go back.

[anni]

"I think the most difficult part is that now we have this totally different way of looking at life, and probably the correct way, but no one else around knows anything about it. We want to tell them about it but that's just not possible. I got used to this "double-life" now though, it doesn't bother me much anymore, I wouldn't go back."

yeah, that might be part of it. I would'nt want to go back either, thats clear. Truth is always the better choice, at least for me.
But I wouldnt really say, that it made my life better. So many things seem so meaningless- and stupid. So, if it was a common in the west, I guess, I would live in an ashram oder monastere. The worldly life just doesnt really seem so appealing to me anymore.

And in a way, I also think, I would like to have more fun. I mean, if were are just roll playing around, why do we chose so many tragedys, war-stories. etc? Why do people think they will get happier if they dominate other people? It all seem to be totaly absurd. At the end they are trying to dominate themselves, how crazy is that?


Most people seem to be so deep in to this play.....

Where do I find the comedy channel?

[anni]

"Furthermore, LOVE for another is an interpersonal emotion and this "unconditional love bliss" is just a solitary thing."

I experience this differently. I think this bliss is very often contagious. And during my bliss time, very often random strangers talked to me and I had the feeling, that people liked to be closed to me.

For the emotion, I mean if you can ask yourself what LOVE really is? A dualistic view might explain it with evolutionary theories, the limbic system, bonding theory etc.
But I would rather say, it es the "feeling" of unitiy. So there is some non dual understanding (rather uncounscious) in it. I usually doesnt last very long for most people and also they feel it only for a limited number of people in there live. But I would guess that the feeling of love is a kind of unconscious knowing of non seperation.
Like Nissagadarta says it.