"Living Nonduality" -- The Film

[Finefeather]

Posted by Clear Blue Skies (here)
But in terms on Consciousness "Dualism" refers to the apparent separation between Subject and Object, as if there is a Perceiver who perceives "things", or a Thinker who thinks thoughts ...

Just to ensure you that I did not miss the "Perceiver" and "Thinker" idea... They are one and the same because individual consciousness is the extent of both the "Perceiver" and the "Thinker" unless you are telepathic and perceiving the thoughts of others... and even then perception would be governed by the extent of your consciousness to understand the perception.

No one can perceive something which is higher than their consciousness permits.

[Clear Light]

Posted by Finefeather (here)

Posted by Clear Blue Skies (here)
But in terms on Consciousness "Dualism" refers to the apparent separation between Subject and Object, as if there is a Perceiver who perceives "things", or a Thinker who thinks thoughts ...

Just to ensure you that I did not miss the "Perceiver" and "Thinker" idea... They are one and the same because individual consciousness is the extent of both the "Perceiver" and the "Thinker" unless you are telepathic and perceiving the thoughts of others... and even then perception would be governed by the extent of your consciousness to understand the perception.

No one can perceive something which is higher than their consciousness permits.

Oh, but the point I am making is that 'you' are NOT your thoughts, perceptions, feelings and sensations ... 'you' are the KNOWING which knows them !

It's the Ego (the false self) that likes to take ownership of such things and tell stories about them eh ? LOL

[greybeard]

As yet there has not been a shift in this case so I have to take others word for it or not as the case might be and I take Tims word for this shift that can occur and has happened since recorded time.
So this is his account from the link

https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...l=1#post456904

Enlightenment - A direct, succinct account of what occurs...

This is an account of the direct experience of awakening.

What can be said, or written, of itself cannot reveal the truth.

Words and language are themselves an illusory tool, an aspect of the relative dream, and can only indicate or hint towards the totality, or reality, or that which is.

Upon the moment of awakening not only does the illusion of the relative self or ego vanish like a shadow exposed to light, but all “other” egos, or relative selves, disappear. All separation disappears, and the absolute Self is realized. All is then enlightened and whole, for there never really were separate entities that could become individually enlightened. There then is no relative doer, nor even an absolute doer, for all doing implies separation. Or something to do, or somewhere to go. And not just other humans, but the entire creation is enlightened and whole.

Now nothing can be judged, or observed, or transcended, as there is no separate observer, nor separate objects observed, nor even separate observing.

Here even the concept of pure awareness, the witness, unidentified with that which is observed, has dissolved into the totality. Herein lies the meaning of samsara is nirvana. The slightest separation into observer, observed and observing and samsara appears. When observer, observed and observing is an undifferentiated whole, the Self is self evident, and far more evident, than the illusory ego self.

All that is, then is, as it really is, here descriptions do not apply.

Now, what is missing from the above description of the direct experience of enlightenment?

It is the pronoun, I, for in truth there is no I, either relatively or absolutely. I implies a separation from totality, as the first person singular. Whereas the adjective Self, implies being the same throughout, as the self evident united reality/totality/all that is, and is more appropriate at hinting towards the truth.

You are in reality this Self, all else is illusion.
Relatively, this is the end of suffering. This is the beginning of endless bliss.
Absolutely, all suffering is unreal. Only the blissful Self is real.
This is the eternal Truth.

[Clear Light]

Posted by Finefeather (here)

Posted by Clear Blue Skies (here)
But in terms on Consciousness "Dualism" refers to the apparent separation between Subject and Object, as if there is a Perceiver who perceives "things", or a Thinker who thinks thoughts ...

Where did you read that? It is thought provoking

Subject and object? I assume that you mean Subjective and Objective? Lets see if it fits into my formula.

Objectivity is the realisation of subjectivity... and subjectivity is the forerunner of objectivity.

So objectivity and subjectivity are not dualism because they depend on each other to exist... that is why dualism is the inability to see the bigger picture.

You could also say this in another way...

Action follows Thought... and Thought precedes action... of course you can think without acting but that just means that we are in contemplation and maybe one day we might get around to doing what we were thinking about... some just think all day

Oh, 'I' know this is probably very likely to upset 'you' however since 1925 Quantum Mechanics / Physics has made clear no objective reality is possible !

Please may I refer you to this Avalon thread : "The Universe is Immaterial : Mental and Spiritual"

It may help to shed light on the differences between our respective philosophies

[Apophenia]

Very interesting, would it be possible that the dualism of objectivity and subjectivity work both ways then, and not necessarily that one precedes the other?

Kind of like a table as opposed to a linear point A to point B arrangement.

Is it self-caused?

What about the finite, material reality being a creation/destruction cycle of the infinite?

If that is the case, then nothing matters and whatever created this finite reality is what is keeping it together, which would have to be another infinite soul... where as something with a truly infinite consciousness embraces any and all forms of creation, including our present predicament, and reverts back to endlessness/nothingness.

[RunningDeer]

Posted by Finefeather (here)
Where did you read that? It is thought provoking

Hello Ray

Here’s a short list of philosopher, sage, teacher(s) from my days of reflection that speak to that:

• Nisargadatta Maharaj, (quotes)
  
• Eknath Easwaran translations of the trilogy: “The Dhammapada”, “The Upanishads”, “The Bhagavad Gita”, (quotes)
  
• Sri Ramana Maharishi (quotes)
  
• Dr. David R. Hawkins, (quotes)
  
• Mooji, (quotes)

If I had to pick a favorite, it'd be a toss up between Nisargadatta Maharaja and David Hawkins but for different reasons in what they passed along.

With heart,
Paula

[Finefeather]

Posted by Clear Blue Skies (here)

Posted by Finefeather (here)

Posted by Clear Blue Skies (here)
But in terms on Consciousness "Dualism" refers to the apparent separation between Subject and Object, as if there is a Perceiver who perceives "things", or a Thinker who thinks thoughts ...

Just to ensure you that I did not miss the "Perceiver" and "Thinker" idea... They are one and the same because individual consciousness is the extent of both the "Perceiver" and the "Thinker" unless you are telepathic and perceiving the thoughts of others... and even then perception would be governed by the extent of your consciousness to understand the perception.

No one can perceive something which is higher than their consciousness permits.

Oh, but the point I am making is that 'you' are NOT your thoughts, perceptions, feelings and sensations ... 'you' are the KNOWING which knows them !

It's the Ego (the false self) that likes to take ownership of such things and tell stories about them eh ? LOL

The ego is NOT a false Self... you are denying your own existence if you think so.
Everyone is an ego...an 'I'...and this 'ego' is the Self... incarnate at it's current stage of growth.

Humans have this ignorant idea that they need to get rid of the ego when it's the same as saying "I must annihilate myself"... what is required is that egoism be controlled... and that will come naturally as they grow consciously and see the truth and realise the nature of unity and brotherhood and love.

The ego has been the result of such misinterpretation and denial that when confronted about their egoism...humans will say things like "Oh! it's not really me" when in fact it's exactly you.

The term 'the ego' has been used simply to illustrate the general state of humans... in esoterics the name given for 'the ego' is the "First Self" being one of three states or levels of "Selves" which we go through in the solar realm...the "First Self" is the human kingdom stage... the "Second Self" is when we advance out of the human stage and into the 5th kingdom... and the "Third Self" is when we advance into the 6th kingdom...After this there are still 6 more Cosmic levels.

Unfortunately...again...misinterpretation has confused this "I" this "Self" with "ego" which was just the closest word the interpreters could come up with... and I guess it has turned out to be a good one for humans.

I suggest you research the constitution of man... because you are a bit shaky on the reality of just who and what you really are.

[Finefeather]

Posted by Clear Blue Skies (here)
Oh, 'I' know this is probably very likely to upset 'you' however since 1925 Quantum Mechanics / Physics has made clear no objective reality is possible !

You will be surprised how much it takes to upset me

Anyway I am not getting into another debate about "reality not been objective"... just be careful when you cross the road... it hurts when a bus rides over you... and you can subjectively think about that

[Finefeather]

Posted by RunningDeer (here)

Posted by Finefeather (here)
Where did you read that? It is thought provoking

Hello Ray

Here’s a short list of philosopher, sage, teacher(s) from my days of reflection that speak to that:

• Nisargadatta Maharaj, (quotes)
  
• Eknath Easwaran translations of the trilogy: “The Dhammapada”, “The Upanishads”, “The Bhagavad Gita”, (quotes)
  
• Sri Ramana Maharishi (quotes)
  
• Dr. David R. Hawkins, (quotes)
  
• Mooji, (quotes)

If I had to pick a favorite, it'd be a toss up between Nisargadatta Maharaja and David Hawkins but for different reasons in what they passed along.

With heart,
Paula

Hi Paula
I was just asking for one specific idea regarding "separation between Subject and Object" and don't need dozens of quotes by your favourites
What was your intention in giving me this extensive bit of homework?

Thank you anyway
Love
Ray

[RunningDeer]

Posted by Finefeather (here)
What was your intention in giving me this extensive bit of homework?

Thank you anyway
Love
Ray

Intention? Homework? My heart just went sad...

♡

[Clear Light]

Posted by Finefeather (here)

Posted by Clear Blue Skies (here)
But in terms on Consciousness "Dualism" refers to the apparent separation between Subject and Object, as if there is a Perceiver who perceives "things", or a Thinker who thinks thoughts ...

Where did you read that? It is thought provoking

Oh, well occasionally I can put together some words into a reasonably coherent sounding sentence without having to make use of quotes you know ... LOL

[greybeard]

Posted by RunningDeer (here)

Posted by Finefeather (here)
Where did you read that? It is thought provoking

Hello Ray

Here’s a short list of philosopher, sage, teacher(s) from my days of reflection that speak to that:

• Nisargadatta Maharaj, (quotes)
  
• Eknath Easwaran translations of the trilogy: “The Dhammapada”, “The Upanishads”, “The Bhagavad Gita”, (quotes)
  
• Sri Ramana Maharishi (quotes)
  
• Dr. David R. Hawkins, (quotes)
  
• Mooji, (quotes)

If I had to pick a favorite, it'd be a toss up between Nisargadatta Maharaja and David Hawkins but for different reasons in what they passed along.

With heart,
Paula

Ray--- Paula has given you in a moment, what took me years of study/ research to find.
I have seen all the quotes in their entirety before---spaced years apart.

For me its simple, either I accept first hand account or not.

I chose first hand with discernment.
I cross checked statements, one Sage against another--there is a commonality in what they express--"the ego is a "apparent" separation device, there is no individual separate person, that’s the illusion--the ego also just a thought " that’s my take.
An intellectual reasoning is not it.

You are welcome to discount what Paula has posted.
Welcome to many more years searching for what you already are.

Chris

[Finefeather]

Posted by greybeard (here)

Posted by RunningDeer (here)

Posted by Finefeather (here)
Where did you read that? It is thought provoking

Hello Ray

Here’s a short list of philosopher, sage, teacher(s) from my days of reflection that speak to that:

• Nisargadatta Maharaj, (quotes)
  
• Eknath Easwaran translations of the trilogy: “The Dhammapada”, “The Upanishads”, “The Bhagavad Gita”, (quotes)
  
• Sri Ramana Maharishi (quotes)
  
• Dr. David R. Hawkins, (quotes)
  
• Mooji, (quotes)

If I had to pick a favorite, it'd be a toss up between Nisargadatta Maharaja and David Hawkins but for different reasons in what they passed along.

With heart,
Paula

Ray--- Paula has given you in a moment, what took me years of study/ research to find.
I have seen all the quotes in their entirety before---spaced years apart.

For me its simple, either I accept first hand account or not.
I chose first hand with discernment.
I cross checked statements, one Sage against another--there is a commonality in what they express--"the ego is a separation device, there is no individual separate person, that’s the illusion " that’s my take.
An intellectual reasoning is not it.

You are welcome to discount what Paula has posted.
Welcome to many more years searching for what you already are.

Chris

So I ask for a specific thing and when inundated with quotes from sages I have no interest in... for this thread... I get emotional responses...where I clearly was been light hearted... did you not see the smiley Paula and Chris?

Then Chris you start rambling on as if my life depends on what I have been given to read... and how you know that this is the stuff I must read....

Chris you remind me of the 'Born Again Christians'... fanatical and overbearing... and when I present something to you... the first thing you do is respond by quoting me sage after sage...

You, Chris, don't have to tell me how to respond to Paula... and I am surprised by her emotional response... she should know better... but maybe I just caught her on a bad day... So...

Paula... if you are reading this... I apologize for appearing to snub your gift... You should know my respect for you by now.

It seems to me that there is not a lot of room for me here on this forum... there is just too much difference between my thinking and your quoting Chris... so I think I will consider my options and probably pack my things and move on from Avalon.

Take care all

[Clear Light]

Posted by Finefeather (here)
It seems to me that there is not a lot of room for me here on this forum... there is just too much difference between my thinking and your quoting Chris... so I think I will consider my options and probably pack my things and move on from Avalon.

Take care all

Hmmm ... but surely there's room enough for all of us eh ? I don't know but maybe you could start a thread about Hylozoism and see what interest it generates ...

[IChingUChing]

Who's having an emotional response now then

[Finefeather]

Posted by IChingUChing (here)
Who's having an emotional response now then

You have a lot to learn about emotional responses... do you think everyone who want to make a decision is having an emotional breakdown?... have you never heard of rational decision making and planning?
I'm also actually sitting here having super and deciding which bus I should take tomorrow...I guess I never new I was having an emotional response every time I choose a bus.

[IChingUChing]

Finefeather maybe you can answer me the following:

How did you leap from "Subject and object?" to "I assume that you mean Subjective and Objective". Not the same things at all.

Clear Blue Skies was talking about dualism and gave the common example of subject/object. Non-dualism or advaita means "not two" and nothing more. It does not mean "one". So it would seem that subject/object is a clear easy example for dualism - i.e. a supposed subject sensing a supposed seperate object.

Full Definition of dualism

1
: a theory that considers reality to consist of two irreducible elements or modes

2
: the quality or state of being dual or of having a dual nature

3
a : a doctrine that the universe is under the dominion of two opposing principles one of which is good and the other evil b : a view of human beings as constituted of two irreducible elements (as matter and spirit)

Within a couple of further jumps you are at "action follows thought". Well, maybe or maybe not but what's that got do with the price of eggs?

Thanks!

[IChingUChing]

Glad to see you're still on board Finefeather and haven't yet got on that bus which could run down one of the other members here

I'm all for being rational and for me that would be using reason. In post 67 above you say:

The term 'the ego' has been used simply to illustrate the general state of humans... in esoterics the name given for 'the ego' is the "First Self" being one of three states or levels of "Selves" which we go through in the solar realm...the "First Self" is the human kingdom stage... the "Second Self" is when we advance out of the human stage and into the 5th kingdom... and the "Third Self" is when we advance into the 6th kingdom...After this there are still 6 more Cosmic levels.

I have no idea whether this is true or not - do you? if you say yes then please provide me with rational proof.

In general in this thread, I see most posters coming up against the usual problems of language to describe what is beyond language and that is to do with non-duality which is what reality apparently is.

If we want to try and use reason to look in to this, a very good starting point is cause and effect. No thing exists which doesn't have parts or attributes so all things are just part of the causal process (or chain if you like). The apparent appearance of a thing, can be seen as a temporary illusion resulting from the temporary coming together of parts and attributes giving the impression of that supposed "thing".

The fact that things only exist as a result of this causal chain means that they in themselves have no seperate existence. Just as they cannot exist without the environment in which they exist - if they were identical with their environment, they would not exist so their (environment and thing in it) only existence is in mutually arising as distinct from each other and thus mutually giving existence to each other. Independently neither exists, together both do and do not exist. This is the paradox.

Even if there are 12 levels of selves or 100 or 1,000, this has nothing to do with a rational search for reality which is a search for ultimate truth. In any one of those 12 levels of selves, cause and effect must apply. But we can never know about them until we are there and then there is here so actually we can only ask questions about here and now. That for me would be rational.

[Finefeather]

Posted by IChingUChing (here)
Finefeather maybe you can answer me the following:

How did you leap from "Subject and object?" to "I assume that you mean Subjective and Objective". Not the same things at all.

Clear Blue Skies was talking about dualism and gave the common example of subject/object. Non-dualism or advaita means "not two" and nothing more. It does not mean "one". So it would seem that subject/object is a clear easy example for dualism - i.e. a supposed subject sensing a supposed seperate object.

Well my idea of dualism is not the same as yours or Clear Blue Skies… so I was not thinking along the Advaita lines… but now you have enlightened me… which is why I said “I assume...”...and which should have been CBSs job to tell me I was going offtrack... but he never did so...

I am aware that subject/object is simply attachment a person may have with objects external to him/her… and that...from this point of view... Non-duality is seen by some as an experience in which there is no separation between subject and object… which then becomes what?

As you say that “not two” does not mean “one”… maybe you would like to explain how you understand that.

Posted by IChingUChing (here)
Full Definition of dualism

1
: a theory that considers reality to consist of two irreducible elements or modes

2
: the quality or state of being dual or of having a dual nature

3
a : a doctrine that the universe is under the dominion of two opposing principles one of which is good and the other evil b : a view of human beings as constituted of two irreducible elements (as matter and spirit)

Here you are assuming that this definition of dualism is universal just as Christians think their interpretation of the bible is universal… you seem to be unaware that there are hundreds of definitions of duality…and non duality.

This is why I stated there is no such thing as duality (non duality) and gave some dualism which I have come across and showed how each opposite is dependent on the other.

Posted by IChingUChing (here)
Within a couple of further jumps you are at "action follows thought". Well, maybe or maybe not but what's that got do with the price of eggs?

So now if we get to the price of eggs now… you should be able to realise that one of the things some people… not you…. consider to be dualism is objectivity and subjectivity… even CBS does because he somewhere above started going into quantum physics... he sound to me somewhere between some philosophies... anyway, and so I also use 'action'… which is an objective thing… with thought… which is a subjective thing to further illustrate my point.

You cannot expect people to know exactly what your idea is in a world where such differences are present… if you want to do that then it would have been nice if CBS gave me just a little clue of what he was referring to...

I do not believe in Indian philosophy and it seems as if anyone does then they are considered behind in their thinking.

So the conclusion is that we both do not believe in dualism... but we have vastly different reasoning... I think I will just leave it at that because I will get no where here...

They say that you reap what you sow but it seams that I have been sowing with plastic seeds on deaf ears... and to think they warned me about this

[RunningDeer]

Posted by Finefeather (here)
Paula... if you are reading this... I apologize for appearing to snub your gift... You should know my respect for you by now.

Dear Ray,

I just got back from an oil change...and getting ready to head out for my daily walk. I hope I'm not late.

You should know my respect for you by now.

Absolutely, Ray. The feeling is mutual and why I spent almost an hour on my post to you. That and it was based on your recent correspondence to Chris somewhere on the forum about looking into Dr. David Hawkin’s work. I saw it as an opportunity to share something with you. It’s not often I can do this based on your deep knowledge on understandings that I don’t have.

If you must leave…leave only because it’s time. I vote, "Don't go." Please know that you will be sorely missed.

Love,
Paula