Can two opposite statements both be true simultaneously? And do you perceive truth as relative?If you believe in the mountain, great. If you see there is no mountain, great. I am just saying one is not more true than the other. What works for you is what you will go with.
It depends on what you mean. I've had altered states while awake, but I wouldn't call them awakening experiences; just glimpses. I've had experiences that I would call revelations about myself, but these were not completely other-worldly and they were actually lasting experiences that I had day in and day out. I could say I am still having an "awakening experience" right now, though it's not as captivating and stimulating as it once was. The stimulation came from a sort of resistance to...something...and before it came time to let go, it was very pleasureful in a naughty sort of way ;)samadhi wrote:Can you tell me if you have had an awakening experience?
Exactly! But what has to be realized is that without being there cannot be knowing, AND vice versa. And “knowing†is not necessarily in an abstractly conceptualized sense, but a felt “knowing†of “being†too.To me, the duality is really one of being and knowing.
I would be interested in knowing the details if you don’t mind; perhaps a new thread?I've had altered states while awake, but I wouldn't call them awakening experiences; just glimpses.
Yep. That is quite possible and it happens frequently, I'm sure. But in many other cases, people are diagnosed ill because they ARE ill. The problem arises when people in the latter group want to pretend to be in the former. That happens frequently, too.Is it possible to be too logical and therefore more intuitive then other people? Resulting in a diagnosis. If the world is as crazy as everyone says it is, then someone who isn't crazy and therefore tries to make sense of it, might be wrongly considered ill.
Hallucinations are not equivalent to visualization. Hallucinations do not occur in healthy individuals.Can you believe this - symptoms are: hallucinations = visualizing, voices = imagination, delusions = perceived as irrational, although rational, by irrational doctors. Diagnosis: Schizophrenic.
Rarely does any unmedicated schizophrenic consider himself or herself "one of those who needs it." That's kind of obvious, given that they are unmedicated, no?NOT medicated. Sure, some people do need it, but not all who are diagnosed.
It's something that needs to be encountered with openness and intellectual honesty. People like Nietzsche tried to "surpass" the world, and they went batshit nuts for their trouble. Freddy managed to write a few books first, so it wasn't a total loss, but the majority of such individuals don't.How could the world not drive someone sane into insanity. To me, it's something that needs to be surpasses, so that further intellectual development takes place.
You mean whatever rocks ones boat is fine, as long as it’s rocking? Well, I know that is true for all beings, but the “belief†part is not actually there any more, and you don’t have to take my word for it; think as you like.I am not trying to dismiss anything. If you believe in the mountain, great. If you see there is no mountain, great. I am just saying one is not more true than the other. What works for you is what you will go with.
Non-duality is not something you can be conscious of.
OK, let’s remove the riffraff and focus on this...Sam: You can come by it experientially as well even without a realization.
Sap: Aren't 'realizations' but an inherent part of 'experiences'?
Sam: I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Realization as I refer to it just means knowing what you are.
So where exactly is non-duality then? Because one still does senses an “I†that is neither the dream nor the dream character. And where does the “I†go when in deep sleep? So it is necessary that something other than the “I†be there for an “I†to be an “Iâ€, and can "consciously" reflect upon its own BEING.I was referring to dreams we have while sleeping. And of course there is differentiation in a dream. That is the duality you are experiencing while you dream.
There is no “YOU†unless there is something other than “YOU†my friend.Non-duality of the dream state refers to the consciousness that creates and sustains it. It is all consciousness, all "you".
So are you taking about an unconscious state? As long as I’m even dreaming, “I†am in a conscious state.Again, you are referring to a conscious state.
And I’m saying there is no such thing as “non-duality†nor such a state, and that ‘awareness’, of which our kind of complex awareness is but according to the nature of an evolved thing, but however remains at different sensual or felt levels, and that there ALWAYS has to be “something†to be SENSED of FELT at least. Otherwise, NOTHING IS, and that is logically impossible.You seem to be reiterating the duality of the conscious state. Yes, we are in agreement that the conscious state is dualistic.
May be for you it’s a moot point, but not for me. You call it “within†once you think of it as different state as compared to a “wakeful†one, but try and see that when “within†a dream, there is a “I†AND something else. Once the sense of “something†else subsides, your “I†subsides too, AKA, deep sleep, because once you “wakeupâ€, your memory kicks back the continuity of YOUR particular “Iâ€, otherwise its called DEATH.Sap: Duality does not require a Non-duality, but Non-duality does, for Duality itself is Self-sustainable and relies on its own inherent PROCESS, Yin AND Yang, in the traditional terminology.
Sam: Whether it requires it or not is moot. In dreaming you can see they both exist, one within the other.
A more illogical interpretation according to me; if “you†have “transcended†your “characterâ€, good for you, but that is not possible according to me, because your essential characteristics IS what YOU are, in any given causal condition, nothing more, nothing less.Well, I'm not sure you got what I was referring to as non-dualism. Dualism is the experience of the character. It is necessarily dualistic. Non-dualism is a transcending of the character, there is no "I" there. It is what the "I" appears within.
I can say why, but to my Self only, for that is MY realization, not YOURS. Ultimately it is each to his own; it does not really matter what “others†think.Sap: And goes about simply operating in that light, without thence ever giving even “duality†a second thought.
Sam: Sure, if you enjoy it, why would you give it a second thought?
Sap: Hahahaa... You are still interpreting it according your experiences, my friend, which I don't mind at all, but it no longer remains a matter of "enjoyment"; ever-opposite emotions are so intense that they cancel each other out in an inherent sense; what remains is simply a dualistically aware consciousness, that carries water and chops wood, ESSENTIALLY speaking
Sam: Well, that may be but the result is the same. You do what you do, who can say why?
THIS is what I am or THAT is what I am is the ‘false-ego’ speaking; one can stop thinking in those terms, but I and perhaps I think Nat is pointing to the real “Iâ€, which is the real EGO, for it cannot exist unless there is something other than THAT, without relating to a conceptual character through a false-ego that believes things exist inherently. (That is, without dependency), but the real Ego too, is dependant on something other that itself to “SENSE†its existence, hence it cannot be an Absolute by its self all alone. So the “iâ€, or the REAL “I†if you please, is nothing more than a sensual EGO at its heart.I think his (Nat’s) point is that the ego doesn't disappear. My point would be that the persona doesn't disappear. Ego, the thought, "This is what I am," can disappear.
Ah! So that was the problem! I already did that above.What do you mean? What do you define as ego?
Yes Really. “Your†awareness is as distinctive as “Mineâ€, otherwise we might as well drop the discussion. No?Sap: So it is illogical to assume that there is some ONE "consciousness" or “awareness†working in all; each one is as unique as it could possibly be.
Sam: Really? How do you differentiate "your" awareness from "mine"?
My use of “false-ego†here should have given you an indication as to what I mean by “Egoâ€; however, the Ego, a particular “Iâ€, otherwise there cannot be one, if nothing else, still protects “knowledge†and indulges in propagating the same as per its own reasoning, but thinks it is THE Absolute undeniable Truth, which actually but remains a personal and subjective realization, and not a universal one. There is an individualistically operating choice you know; and that essentially makes ‘you’ and ‘me’ not the one and the same thing, nor absolutely anything for that matter. No two apples are absolute alike, nor two grains of sand.Sap: Our False-Ego, lures us into "worshipping" a mere process actually, through desires that also have a positive side, and are necessary for Existence to work.
Sam: Right. This is identification. Without the "worship," the body/mind becomes a means of expression rather than an identity to protect and propagate.
Most certainly! But I have heard that here itself, and that helps describe the journey into extreme doubtfulness, until all doubts are removed once and for all.Unidian wrote:I'm pretty sure Sapius is aware that this is a classic Zen saying, slightly paraphrased. It's quite a good one, too.First there was a mountain, and then there was no mountain, and then there was indeed a mountain.
That's fine.sam: I am not trying to dismiss anything. If you believe in the mountain, great. If you see there is no mountain, great. I am just saying one is not more true than the other. What works for you is what you will go with.
Sap: You mean whatever rocks ones boat is fine, as long as it’s rocking? Well, I know that is true for all beings, but the "belief" part is not actually there any more, and you don’t have to take my word for it; think as you like.
Dreaming isn't conceptual. My point is that you don't experience dreaming non-dualistically, it's always from a viewpoint within a dream. Only on awakening is its non-dual nature apparent.sam: Non-duality is not something you can be conscious of.
Sap: No, you are conscious of its concept, hence it is a "thing"; in inverted commas at least, but you can deny that; whereas existence needs no concept to be what it IS.
The realization of knowing what I am? No. Realization in general though, of course, and it always changes behavior.sam: You can come by it experientially as well even without a realization.
Sap: Aren't 'realizations' but an inherent part of 'experiences'?
Sam: I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Realization as I refer to it just means knowing what you are.
Sap: What is the difference you see between ‘experiences’ and ‘realizations’? Can I say that you have experienced a realization and hence act differently than before?
I have agreed with you every time you've said this and I continue to agree with you. You don't have to keep saying it.sam: I was referring to dreams we have while sleeping. And of course there is differentiation in a dream. That is the duality you are experiencing while you dream.
Sap: So where exactly is non-duality then? Because one still does senses an "I" that is neither the dream nor the dream character. And where does the "I" go when in deep sleep? So it is necessary that something other than the "I" be there for an "I" to be an "I", and can "consciously" reflect upon its own BEING.
I am referring to consciousness as "you." When you dream however, consciousness is not personal in that sense, it becomes whatever appears in the dream. Yet whatever appears, it remains consciousness and in that sense is non-dual.sam: Non-duality of the dream state refers to the consciousness that creates and sustains it. It is all consciousness, all "you".
Sap: There is no "YOU" unless there is something other than "YOU" my friend.
I was agreeing with you. When you are conscious, duality operates.sam: Again, you are referring to a conscious state.
Sap: So are you taking about an unconscious state? As long as I’m even dreaming, "I" am in a conscious state.
Well, here is where we disagree. Dreaming obviously is a non-dual state in which duality arises. It's all consciousness, thus non-dual.sam: You seem to be reiterating the duality of the conscious state. Yes, we are in agreement that the conscious state is dualistic.
Sap: And I’m saying there is no such thing as "non-duality" nor such a state ...
I don;t know why you need to keep reiterating this. Yes, consciousness is dualistic when personalized. It doesn't mean everything that's happening can't be arising from a single source.... and that 'awareness', of which our kind of complex awareness is but according to the nature of an evolved thing, but however remains at different sensual or felt levels, and that there ALWAYS has to be "something" to be SENSED of FELT at least. Otherwise, NOTHING IS, and that is logically impossible.
You keep missing my point. Dreaming as consciousness is non-dual. It is ALL CONSCIOUSNESS. Duality arises WITHIN consciousness.Sap: Duality does not require a Non-duality, but Non-duality does, for Duality itself is Self-sustainable and relies on its own inherent PROCESS, Yin AND Yang, in the traditional terminology.
sam: Whether it requires it or not is moot. In dreaming you can see they both exist, one within the other.
Sap: May be for you it's a moot point, but not for me. You call it "within" once you think of it as different state as compared to a "wakeful" one, but try and see that when "within" a dream, there is a "I" AND something else. Once the sense of "something" else subsides, your "I" subsides too, AKA, deep sleep, because once you "wakeup", your memory kicks back the continuity of YOUR particular "I", otherwise its called DEATH.
"You" don't transcend. When you awaken from a dream, the character you were dreaming yourself to be hasn't transcended anything, it simply no longer exists.sam: Well, I'm not sure you got what I was referring to as non-dualism. Dualism is the experience of the character. It is necessarily dualistic. Non-dualism is a transcending of the character, there is no "I" there. It is what the "I" appears within.
Sap: A more illogical interpretation according to me; if "you" have "transcended" your "character", good for you, but that is not possible according to me, because your essential characteristics IS what YOU are, in any given causal condition, nothing more, nothing less.
I wouldn't presume to tell you why you do what you do.Sap: And goes about simply operating in that light, without thence ever giving even "duality" a second thought.
Sam: Sure, if you enjoy it, why would you give it a second thought?
Sap: Hahahaa... You are still interpreting it according your experiences, my friend, which I don't mind at all, but it no longer remains a matter of "enjoyment"; ever-opposite emotions are so intense that they cancel each other out in an inherent sense; what remains is simply a dualistically aware consciousness, that carries water and chops wood, ESSENTIALLY speaking
Sam: Well, that may be but the result is the same. You do what you do, who can say why?
Sap: I can say why, but to my Self only, for that is MY realization, not YOURS. Ultimately it is each to his own; it does not really matter what "others" think.
I can see this is where you and I are having trouble understanding each other. Ego to me is always false. You seem to be referring to the "I AM" which really cannot be spoken of in any coherent sense.sam: I think his (Nat’s) point is that the ego doesn't disappear. My point would be that the persona doesn't disappear. Ego, the thought, "This is what I am," can disappear.
Sap: THIS is what I am or THAT is what I am is the ‘false-ego’ speaking; one can stop thinking in those terms, but I and perhaps I think Nat is pointing to the real “Iâ€, which is the real EGO, for it cannot exist unless there is something other than THAT, without relating to a conceptual character through a false-ego that believes things exist inherently. (That is, without dependency), but the real Ego too, is dependant on something other that itself to "SENSE" its existence, hence it cannot be an Absolute by its self all alone. So the "i", or the REAL "I" if you please, is nothing more than a sensual EGO at its heart.
Right.sam: What do you mean? What do you define as ego?
Sap: Ah! So that was the problem! I already did that above.
Hardly. The contents of awareness are certainly distinct but awareness has no qualities from which any distinction can be made. But if you want to elaborate, I’m listening.Sap: So it is illogical to assume that there is some ONE "consciousness" or “awareness†working in all; each one is as unique as it could possibly be.
Sam: Really? How do you differentiate "your" awareness from "mine"?
Sap: Yes Really. "Your" awareness is as distinctive as "Mine", otherwise we might as well drop the discussion. No?
Or two personas. The "I AM" however remains one.Sap: Our False-Ego, lures us into "worshipping" a mere process actually, through desires that also have a positive side, and are necessary for Existence to work.
Sam: Right. This is identification. Without the "worship," the body/mind becomes a means of expression rather than an identity to protect and propagate.
Sap: My use of "false-ego" here should have given you an indication as to what I mean by "Ego"; however, the Ego, a particular "I", otherwise there cannot be one, if nothing else, still protects "knowledge" and indulges in propagating the same as per its own reasoning, but thinks it is THE Absolute undeniable Truth, which actually but remains a personal and subjective realization, and not a universal one. There is an individualistically operating choice you know; and that essentially makes 'you' and 'me' not the one and the same thing, nor absolutely anything for that matter. No two apples are absolute alike, nor two grains of sand.
I’m sorry, I forgot to acknowledge your response. I posed my question because of the insightful way with which you seem to respond in all your posts. I appreciate that a lot.divine focus wrote:It depends on what you mean. I've had altered states while awake, but I wouldn't call them awakening experiences; just glimpses. I've had experiences that I would call revelations about myself, but these were not completely other-worldly and they were actually lasting experiences that I had day in and day out. I could say I am still having an "awakening experience" right now, though it's not as captivating and stimulating as it once was. The stimulation came from a sort of resistance to...something...and before it came time to let go, it was very pleasureful in a naughty sort of way ;)samadhi wrote:Can you tell me if you have had an awakening experience?
This is still somewhat the case at times, but I'm so used to it I don't even realize it's happening. I just catch myself biting softly on my lower lip and wonder how long I've been doing it. My seven-year-old neice saw me doing it once and was like, "Stop doing that!"
I think you also forgot to answer my questions. They're at the top of this page (7).I’m sorry, I forgot to acknowledge your response.
Shahrazad wrote:I think you also forgot to answer my questions. They're at the top of this page (7).
Sher, sorry for not responding. I think your question is taking a literal approach to something metaphorical. Mountain and no mountain is not meant to be taken literally. It is rather a metaphor for what one's life is about.sam: If you believe in the mountain, great. If you see there is no mountain, great. I am just saying one is not more true than the other. What works for you is what you will go with.
Sher: Can two opposite statements both be true simultaneously? And do you perceive truth as relative?
Here's a simple example:
(1) Tom is taller than Harry.
(2) Tom is not taller than Harry.
Are (1) and (2) both true?
