Materialism, Idealism or mentalism?

[Blair]

Show me the I. If it exists, you must be able to demonstrate it; it must be analytically findable. I've looked everywhere, but haven't found it. I'm still open about the idea though, so go ahead.

The I (or The Eye) can be demonstrated through your own use of logic, and indeed the axiom which you are reasoning with above, which is along the lines of there must be an an object and a subject. In this way, it can be understood that you are the subject. Everything you think you are, is being witnessed by your true I, who has fallen into a daze, through boredom of waiting for you to figure out that the game is over. It ends when you (ego-persona) pull back the veil, the Aaha! moment.

This will only happen when you equally tire of the game. If you have a sense, an intuition that something is not right about your sensory experience, that there is something being obscured from you, that is the I giving you a little nudge in the right direction, towards the exit so to speak.

You can experience the I in very simple ways, for example imagine yourself walking to the other side of the room, then physically do it. If you focus intently, you will see your physical self as a type of vapour trail to what was already rendered to be done by the I, or the spirit. You where "there", then your body was there.

[Little Idiot]

I use the terms Nirvikapla to mean void in trance, no subject-ibject duality and no world. It is the more pure non-dual experience ... I use the terms Sahaja to mean knowing the void in the world - the state of the active sage; seeing the real within the physical (mundane).

Hi, I can generally agree with you here. Two points though:

1: By calling the Nirvikapa state more "pure" it is clear that you have not a deep insight. Because, emptiness and dependent arising are not two different entities. Emptiness exist because of what is dependently arisen (what you call 'the mundane') and the dependently arisen exist because it has the character of emptiness. Therefore, the mundane is pure. (Note, it doesn't "become" pure when X happens or something like that, it is pure, "from the start" for lack of better words.) The void is not separate from the mundane, as in your perception. You want to posit an causal void in which some Base-Consciousness exist though because you want this to be the life-boat for your ego when your biological body faces cessation.

You are right. There is no fundamental difference, only an apparent difference when viewed from within time. This is a point of such subtlety that it almost evades me. I have explored it using a concept I call 'the apparent dual aspects of IT' apparent becuse there is only one, aspect to describe views of the same thing from different observation points, dual as one aspect is in relation to space-time, the other aspect in relation to the one alone. I do not yet claim full understanding, my position is that there is no difference, but it can be analysed as if there is such a difference, to sharped dualistic human understanding of the non-dual.
I know this is the key to how the world is an appearance of the real, and therefore is real, but not timeless so it is not ultimatly real.
You are right, my insight is not complete, my insight is partial and intermitant.

2: We need to remember that when we speak about Nirvikalpa and Sahaj that these are 3-person objective descriptions of a 1-person phenomenological experience. Therefore, it sounds like we can point to a person apparently having these Nirvikalpa and Sahaj experiences. But for the supposed person in the supposed Nirvikalpa or Sahaj state, what is experienced is not someone-having-an-experience-of-X. What is experienced is non-dual, impersonal ultimate reality, directly and non-conceptually. Look at this guy for example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1xq2tB2 ... annel_page Taking a 3-person perspective, it looks like he is having an experience of some sort. But to "him" (1-p) there is no experience, there is only the truth of non-separation (no 1-p or 3-p); tathātā.

Again, you are right. The very notion of non-dual excludes the possibility of an experiencer-and-experience. This is what distinguishes these states from the normal states of experience, and proves their validity.
I will contemplate what you have said before I comment any more; too many words and I will look more like a fool ;-)

[Is.]

The I (or The Eye) can be demonstrated through your own use of logic, and indeed the axiom which you are reasoning with above, which is along the lines of there must be an an object and a subject. In this way, it can be understood that you are the subject.

This I, is it the same as the body and mind. Or is it different from the body and mind? Or is it both same and different as the body and mind? Or is it neither the same of different than the body and mind? If the I exists, it must exist in one of these ways. Your turn.

There is no fundamental difference, only an apparent difference when viewed from within time.

This is it. Whatever is happening. For example, a crow is squawking outside the window here. There is no hearer of the squawk, and no crow - just the apparent sound. I am not the Witness of the sound. There's just sound.

Squawk, squawk, squawk! :D

[Little Idiot]

There is no fundamental difference, only an apparent difference when viewed from within time.

This is it. Whatever is happening. For example, a crow is squawking outside the window here. There is no hearer of the squawk, and no crow - just the apparent sound. I am not the Witness of the sound. There's just sound.

Squawk, squawk, squawk! :D

I dare not say you are wrong Is, but will you unpavk that for me? make your meaning explicit for me.
guess; Are you refering in some way to the non-duality of experience as opposed to a duality of seer and seen?
Isn't duality a fact within experience? Non-duality a fact of ultimate existence?

[Is.]

I dare not say you are wrong Is

You say whatever you'd like!

Isn't duality a fact within experience?

There is no experienc:er, and no experience. Just whatever is happening. And that happening in ungraspable, ineffable, unfindable - shunya. Just action.

This is the middle way, you see. Happening avoids the extreme of nihilism, unfindability avoids the extreme of eternalism.

The breaking-up-the-world into digital fragments of experience is just a convenient way for individuals and societies to evolve and prosper. However important it is on a conventional level, it is an illusory split.

Hearer, hearing and the heard can not be separated. They arise and subside together. If you posit that one can exist independently of the other two, then you end up with a number of logical fallacies. This video here discusses this quite well I think, but mainly with the visual faculty: http://www.youtube.com/user/sadhumarut# ... m6k5g3FyYI

Listen carefully to that video, there's some profound, timeless wisdom expressed right there.

[Blair]

This I, is it the same as the body and mind. Or is it different from the body and mind? Or is it both same and different as the body and mind? Or is it neither the same of different than the body and mind? If the I exists, it must exist in one of these ways. Your turn.

It's both, and more.

In analogy, the body is the hand, the mind is the arm. The I is the torso, though the hand and arm only know what the torso is by touch, there is no awareness of the nerve network through which the torso, or brain by extension, controls arm and hand, they correspond to its wishes regardless.

This same limited/obscured relationship extends upwards to the I. The body and mind are extensions of a higher level of control. This level is not available to your perception, as it would render the process unworkable.

[Is.]

Enjoy dukkha, Prince. Because judging by the degree of attachement you display above, there's alot alot coming your way.

[Eclipse]

Is. wrote:
This is the middle way, you see. Happening avoids the extreme of nihilism, unfindability avoids the extreme of eternalism.

I wonder if "faith" (a belief in the invisible - that something is not evident but may become manifest) would be considered a middle way between feeling and fact?

Sadhumarut implies to me a total absence of faith: Things only exist when they are known.

[Blair]

Enjoy dukkha, Prince. Because judging by the degree of attachement you display above, there's alot alot coming your way.

Good, that is the correct response.

I have given you a glimpse of your own reflection.

[Little Idiot]

I dare not say you are wrong Is

You say whatever you'd like!

You are right, I can say what I like. What I meant was "I dont want to say 'no your wrong' because you may or may not be right - show me!"
Now I have been thinking about this, and it takes me a while to think, but now I am back with questions.

Isn't duality a fact within experience?

There is no experienc:er, and no experience. Just whatever is happening. And that happening in ungraspable, ineffable, unfindable - shunya. Just action.

This is the middle way, you see. Happening avoids the extreme of nihilism, unfindability avoids the extreme of eternalism.

I know non-duality defines void as non-describe-able (sic) but you want to apply the same to experience, am I right?
I can understand happening as avoiding nihilism.
But I dont get unfindability avoids eternalism. I am maybe an 'eteralist' as I understand the cosmos is eternal. Can you expand on this idea of unfindability for me?

The breaking-up-the-world into digital fragments of experience is just a convenient way for individuals and societies to evolve and prosper. However important it is on a conventional level, it is an illusory split.

It is my understanding that the individual mind puts the illusion of separation (self, space, time, thing and cause) onto the experience. We experience in duality because we can not (normally) experience in any other way, not because the reality 'behind' experience is actually dual. The breaking up is illusionary, as you say. But within the moment, on the level of happening (which I would call experience) rather than the ultimate level; do you say there is 'no experienc:er, and no experience. Just whatever is happening'. Or is that an ultimate position?

Hearer, hearing and the heard can not be separated. They arise and subside together. If you posit that one can exist independently of the other two, then you end up with a number of logical fallacies. This video here discusses this quite well I think, but mainly with the visual faculty: http://www.youtube.com/user/sadhumarut# ... m6k5g3FyYI

Listen carefully to that video, there's some profound, timeless wisdom expressed right there.

I agree hearing = hear-er + hear-ed.
experiencing = experience-er + experience-ed
etc.
But you seem to be saying there is only 'happening' no hear-er or hear-ed. But there is the apparent sound.
Can you explain that for me? How do you establish that as a piece of knowledge, rather than a metaphysical idea?

[Is.]

Can you expand on this idea of unfindability for me?

Certainly. It's quite simple actually. It means that whatever you search for with an analytical mind won't ever be found. Try to thoroughly search for a car, for example. If we're going to search for it, we need to know if the car is a) the same as its part, or b) different from them. There is no other alternative. If a car is an analytically findable entity, then it must be either a), or b).

a) Is the car the same as its parts - wheels, engine, chassi, radio, seats, bumpers, gas exhaust, etc etc - individually, or is it the same as its parts collectively? If individually, then it would follow that just as there are many parts, there would, absurdly, be many cars. But this is not our experience, there is one car standing over there, not many. If collectively, then it would absurdly follow that if you removed say, one seat, the entire car would disintegrate. Because if the car is exactly the same entity as the sum total of its parts, then you can't remove any of the parts and still have a car.

If b) the car is different from its parts, then, absurdly, it would be possible to remove some (engine and wheels, for example) or all the parts of the car and still have a car which we could use to drive the kids to school. This clearly doesn't work.

See? There are no further possibilities. An objectively existing car was unfindable under analysis. This is what I mean by unfindability.

The breaking up is illusionary, as you say. But within the moment, on the level of happening (which I would call experience) rather than the ultimate level; do you say there is 'no experienc:er, and no experience. Just whatever is happening'. Or is that an ultimate position?

You've separated reality into two different things: ultimate reality, and conventional reality. This is fine, as long as we remember that the conventional reality (in which there are cars, people with experience, sounds, death, etc) is actually just like a dream. It is not real. Like I say in the other thread with Sapius - it is a mirage. Ultimate reality is not somehow separate from what you call experience, and which I call happening, reality, or just life. This is why I refrain to use the ultimate/conventional reality-words, and instead try to use the words reality/convenient fiction.

With this in mind, we can take a look at our experience right now. What is happening? Where is the experience:er? If no experience:er is found, to whom is this an experience? Without an experience:er, how can there be an experience? Doesn't experience:er and experience arise together? Would it be logical to assert an experience:er without an experience? An experience without an experience:er?

This questioning attitude has the extraordinary power to end all suffering.

...you seem to be saying there is only 'happening' no hear-er or hear-ed. But there is the apparent sound.

What humans call 'sound' arises, what humans call 'sound' dissolves. Immaculate, ungraspable action. Complete freefall. Sound arises, sound dissolves. Nothing has changed, the only difference is that nobody is hearing it. So in a way, everything has changed. A Zen Master said:

"When I heard the sound of the bell ringing, there was no I, and no bell, just the ringing."

:)

[Eclipse]

Is. wrote: Where is the experience:er? If no experience:er is found, to whom is this an experience? Without an experience:er, how can there be an experience? Doesn't experience:er and experience arise together? Would it be logical to assert an experience:er without an experience? An experience without an experience:er?

This questioning attitude has the extraordinary power to end all suffering.

I like how simply this is expressed. Who is suffering? The placeholder in the mind that has an attachment to some thing. Is that me?

Yet when I say that >pointing to placeholder that is suffering< that is who is suffering, it burns the placeholder away. My “I” and my “me” dissolve.

"When I heard the sound of the bell ringing, there was no I, and no bell, just the ringing."

To see the illusion of I-dealism one stops trying to materialize it.

To see the illusion of the bell (materialism), one stops trying to idealize it.

[yana]

Transcendental realism AND idealism for me please.