Re: Defining and describing non-duality
Posted: Sat Sep 04, 2010 12:07 am
Better than a balloon full of hot air blown by a clown who fancies himself a Zen master.
Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment
http://theabsolute.net/phpBB/
guest_of_logic wrote:If a word can be used meaningfully, then it can be defined, because a definition is nothing more than an encapsulation of a word's meaning.cousinbasil wrote:You cannot define nonduality, because a definition entails something of the form A=A.
But you wrote explicitly in your previous post that David had described it!cousinbasil wrote:I was acknowledging this by mentioning the word ineffable. Common definition: adjective: defying expression or description. If a thing is ineffable, then it cannot be described. But saying it cannot be described is describing it.
Sorry, cousinbasil, but this just doesn't make any sense. To use a word meaningfully implies that it has a meaningful definition, which also implies that it maps meaningfully to a concept. If a word doesn't map to any concept then it cannot be used as anything except gibberish. Are you really reducing the term "non-duality" to gibberish?cousinbasil wrote:Once you get a "definition" of nonduality, you are automatically thinking of something else, since language fails to map to the concept because of the nature of the concept and by the inherent limitations of any language
It is you with duct tape on the mouth of your memories.movingalways wrote:Laird, when you are still, and I do mean still...
No can do - I've had too much caffeine.
Seriously, though, please go ahead and explain this stillness if you care to.
In a sense, yes. And I did say David has described it. Hasn't he? To say he has not would be to imply that nothing he has ever written has described nonduality. Would you really make that argument? Do you agree that there are things beyond description, ie, ineffable things?Sorry, cousinbasil, but this just doesn't make any sense. To use a word meaningfully implies that it has a meaningful definition, which also implies that it maps meaningfully to a concept. If a word doesn't map to any concept then it cannot be used as anything except gibberish. Are you really reducing the term "non-duality" to gibberish?
it seems true that cognition operates dualistically, and reasoning being dependent on cognition must also operate in dualistic terms. Some of this above stuff of yours I don't follow at all btw....Is it true or not to operate within anything, there must be an infiltration into the fibers and mechanics of that something which does not separate that which has been infiltrated, but use the house which that which infiltrates is hosted by? Reasoning from the outer primeter is another story
Divison is a strong term, but we divide this from that, and a rational person realizes that the divisions are not there at the deepest level.No division ever occur.
I disagree. From what I gather, you are implying that an experience of stillness is all there is. Stillness is just an experience, but it is not all of consciousness. When the experience is over, one is back with their thinking regular perceptual consciousness.Life does not move. Consciousness does not move. Ones soul does not move. What move is one belief of having different experience at different interval of their living within the SILLNESS OF LIFE.
Any teacher who states that the absolute or ultimate cannot be discussed or one cannot take a view on it is full of bullshit, and they are selling you a load of crap. This allows the fake teacher to keep the student spellbound, and gives a sense of mystery around the whole thing. It basically keeps the student confused because it gives the student no cognitive tools to discover wisdom, and sound reasoning.His whole point was that we simply cannot have views about the ultimate.
so whatever is explained and discussed is done in a conventional manner...("the tao that can be said is not the tao")Kunga wrote:We can't talk about "the fundamental nature of reality" except in a conventional (non-ultimate) sense. Nagarjuna recognized this in his distinction between samvriti (the conventional) and paramartha (the ultimate).
can you explain to someone the taste of honey ?Ryan Rudolph wrote:Any teacher who states that the absolute or ultimate cannot be discussed or one cannot take a view on it is full of bullshit,
EnlightenmentDan Rowden wrote:What has to be experienced?
I wouldn't, but I would make the argument that he's been deliberately obscurantist in this thread, and that when a clear explanation has emerged, he's done his best to distance himself from it (the carcass comment). This, I suggest, is due to a desire on his part to preserve his claim that I fail to understand non-duality, which a clear explanation of same would dispel.cousinbasil wrote:And I did say David has described it. Hasn't he? To say he has not would be to imply that nothing he has ever written has described nonduality. Would you really make that argument?
I think it's possible, yes.cousinbasil wrote:Do you agree that there are things beyond description, ie, ineffable things?
Furblegrumbkin.cousinbasil wrote:Can you think of anything that you cannot describe in words? Good, now please share it with the class.
Good heavens, man, there are those here who possess Ultimate Truth in the palm of their hands: is that not meaningful enough for you?!cousinbasil wrote:The key word you use here is "meaningful." I am not convinced anything that goes on at GF is meaningful.
I do sometimes wonder that memory interferes with the spontaneity of the moment...movingalways wrote:It is you with duct tape on the mouth of your memories.No can do - I've had too much caffeine.movingalways wrote:Laird, when you are still, and I do mean still...
Seriously, though, please go ahead and explain this stillness if you care to.
I don't know really.... You realize If that was true clearly David seems insane then, if he desires for you to be forever distant from direct knowledge of God, yet says that he likes the exact opposite for people. I'm sure you've seen the opening of his webpage. Maybe you simply see it as obscuring when it's actually revealing, because you see things upside down. It's relative, ofcourse...It depends what 'eyes' you're seeing things from.guest_of_logic wrote:I wouldn't, but I would make the argument that he's been deliberately obscurantist in this thread, and that when a clear explanation has emerged, he's done his best to distance himself from it (the carcass comment). This, I suggest, is due to a desire on his part to preserve his claim that I fail to understand non-duality, which a clear explanation of same would dispel.cousinbasil wrote:And I did say David has described it. Hasn't he? To say he has not would be to imply that nothing he has ever written has described nonduality. Would you really make that argument?
.