People misunderstand Non-Duality, let's clear up any confusion here...

reply to post by Visitor2012


So you say that we are either alive or we aren't? Well define what it means to be alive. You equate no incoming senses to being a vegetable. What if that person still has conscious thought but just cannot sense any external stimuli? Is a being that doesn't have conscious thought not alive? Apparently humans are the only animals with an ego, so are other animals not alive? What about trees or bacteria? Are they not alive?

You still aren't making sense. And you still haven't throughly demonstrated an example of duality.

Krazysh0t

Visitor2012

Krazysh0t
reply to post by Visitor2012

 

The word duality is derived from the word dual, meaning two. Explain to me how everything is two? That contradicts the concept of everything, if there are two everythings then obviously they don't contain everything.

Yes duality is comparison of one to another, like contrast. It operates in sight, hearing, touching, smelling, and even our thoughts andour minds which operate on the basis of duality. All of our senses operate like this. Duality is what allows you to experience your reality.

Are you ever going to go into detail with this? What do you mean when you say our senses operate with duality? Our sense are ALWAYS on, they are CONSTANTLY sending information to our brains. Where is the duality in this? Where are the two states?

Your whole argument is lacking development. You state a premise: Everything operates through duality. Then you proceed to repeat this premise OVER and OVER again. Where is your reasoning? Where have you defined how you think of duality? The way your argument goes, you could substitute any random string of letters for the word "duality" and it would keep the same meaning.

edit on 15-2-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)

Take vision for instance. Go into a dim room, and slightly close your eyes and keep your eyeballs still. If you wait long enough, the whole room will become dark. That is unless you move your eyes slightly and the vision will refresh. The only reason it refreshed is because there was a slight change to the image. The 'noticing' is only possible because of duality.

Without contrast, there is no noticing. Without noticing, there is no awareness. Without awareness, there is no perception of existence. Without silence, you won't notice sound. Without contrast in light and dark..you wouldn't have visual perception. Our five sense, and ALL senses is just a tool. Without recognition or the ability to differentiate the data, there would be no awareness of it. Thus no perception.

Duality makes perception possible. Not just in the physical realm, but in ALL realms.

reply to post by Visitor2012


Ok refute this: There is no such thing as light or dark. Whatever you can produce as light, I can produce something that is brighter meaning that your object is relatively dimmer. We can do this infinitely, just add more energy being expelled from the object. Therefore there are infinite states of lightness which means there are more than two states. Therefore duality of brightness doesn't exist.

Like I said, look at things with an either/or perspective is simplistic in nature. There is never only two options. Only the illusion of two options.

Krazysh0t
reply to post by Visitor2012

 

So you say that we are either alive or we aren't? Well define what it means to be alive. You equate no incoming senses to being a vegetable. What if that person still has conscious thought but just cannot sense any external stimuli? Is a being that doesn't have conscious thought not alive? Apparently humans are the only animals with an ego, so are other animals not alive? What about trees or bacteria? Are they not alive?

You still aren't making sense. And you still haven't throughly demonstrated an example of duality.

edit on 15-2-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)

A being that doesn't have consious thought is INDEED alive. But they are not aware of it. Awareness requires duality...which is another word for sense perception.

Ego's are an entirely different matter. Ego's are not perceptions. They are illusions. In fact, they are the personification of illusion.

Krazysh0t
reply to post by Visitor2012

 

Ok refute this: There is no such thing as light or dark. Whatever you can produce as light, I can produce something that is brighter meaning that your object is relatively dimmer. We can do this infinitely, just add more energy being expelled from the object. Therefore there are infinite states of lightness which means there are more than two states. Therefore duality of brightness doesn't exist.

Like I said, look at things with an either/or perspective is simplistic in nature. There is never only two options. Only the illusion of two options.

You're exactly right. Brightness and darkness is a perception. it's a relative term. Just like a dark sunspot is. There's nothing right or wrong with it, it's just perception. Perceptions are relativistic. Relativity..or comparison equals duality. If you perceive form, dualism is its foundation. If you perceive sound, dualism is it's foundation...and this applies to ALL senses. The word "Senses' and 'perception' implies duality.

reply to post by Visitor2012


I still fail to see the duality in sense perception. When are you NOT sensing something? Are there ever a time where your eyes are not seeing things? I'd say that as long as there is enough visible light in the area, the answer is no. Even when your eyes are closed, they are STILL seeing things. You can tell that this is the case by pointing your face towards a bright object with your eyes closed. Some of the light will go through your eyelids and light them up reddish color. Also your eyes are always moving, that is how they create a clear image in front of you. The majority of your sense processing cells are wide processing cells and make things blurry, so our eyes have to dart around constantly to get a good image.

The act of not sensing something is just your brain not consciously processing the incoming information from those senses because the information hasn't changed enough to warrant the brain addressing it consciously. This doesn't mean that your senses are "off," they are just in automatic mode.

Krazysh0t
reply to post by Visitor2012

 

Ok your posts are starting to make my head hurt

Yeah, well, be glad we don't start judging yours.

Visitor2012

Krazysh0t
reply to post by Visitor2012

 

Ok refute this: There is no such thing as light or dark. Whatever you can produce as light, I can produce something that is brighter meaning that your object is relatively dimmer. We can do this infinitely, just add more energy being expelled from the object. Therefore there are infinite states of lightness which means there are more than two states. Therefore duality of brightness doesn't exist.

Like I said, look at things with an either/or perspective is simplistic in nature. There is never only two options. Only the illusion of two options.

You're exactly right. Brightness and darkness is a perception. it's a relative term. Just like a dark sunspot is. There's nothing right or wrong with it, it's just perception. Perceptions are relativistic. Relativity..or comparison equals duality. If you perceive form, dualism is its foundation. If you perceive sound, dualism is it's foundation...and this applies to ALL senses. The word "Senses' and 'perception' implies duality.

edit on 15-2-2014 by Visitor2012 because: (no reason given)

This doesn't make sense. Where are the two choices that warrant the descriptor of dualism? You keep saying that things are dualistic but you don't make a solid case as to what is dualistic about it.

Also, relative things cannot be dualistic. The very fact that it is relative means there are infinite states of it. That is more than 2.

Dualism deals with two. An either/or option. Show me an either/or situation. My assertion is that nothing is dualistic because to say that there are only two states to something is simplistic. Prove me wrong.

reply to post by oktopus


Go ahead. I don't care what you think about my posts. Though if my posts are offending you, please elaborate why. Can you refute my assertions? Or are you just trolling me because of an emotional statement I made to another poster?

Not to mention, I'm not sure what is so judgmental about that post. It was a statement describing my state of mind in response to trying to interpret the poster's post, which made little sense to me. I have been trying to respectfully get him to elaborate on his points better since then. Are you going to actually participate in the thread or just make passive aggressive comments about parts of my posts?

Krazysh0t
reply to post by oktopus

 

Go ahead. I don't care what you think about my posts.

Why should I bother doing so then?

Krazysh0t
reply to post by Visitor2012

 

I still fail to see the duality in sense perception. When are you NOT sensing something? Are there ever a time where your eyes are not seeing things? I'd say that as long as there is enough visible light in the area, the answer is no. Even when your eyes are closed, they are STILL seeing things. You can tell that this is the case by pointing your face towards a bright object with your eyes closed. Some of the light will go through your eyelids and light them up reddish color. Also your eyes are always moving, that is how they create a clear image in front of you. The majority of your sense processing cells are wide processing cells and make things blurry, so our eyes have to dart around constantly to get a good image.

The act of not sensing something is just your brain not consciously processing the incoming information from those senses because the information hasn't changed enough to warrant the brain addressing it consciously. This doesn't mean that your senses are "off," they are just in automatic mode.

Look at the room you're in now. Without the ability to differentiate forms, without the ability to differentiate elements of your vision, you would not notice anything at all.

Name one sense that does not operate off of comparative observation. Without duality, or Maya, there would be no perception at all.

Krazysh0t

Visitor2012

Krazysh0t
reply to post by Visitor2012

 

Ok refute this: There is no such thing as light or dark. Whatever you can produce as light, I can produce something that is brighter meaning that your object is relatively dimmer. We can do this infinitely, just add more energy being expelled from the object. Therefore there are infinite states of lightness which means there are more than two states. Therefore duality of brightness doesn't exist.

Like I said, look at things with an either/or perspective is simplistic in nature. There is never only two options. Only the illusion of two options.

You're exactly right. Brightness and darkness is a perception. it's a relative term. Just like a dark sunspot is. There's nothing right or wrong with it, it's just perception. Perceptions are relativistic. Relativity..or comparison equals duality. If you perceive form, dualism is its foundation. If you perceive sound, dualism is it's foundation...and this applies to ALL senses. The word "Senses' and 'perception' implies duality.

edit on 15-2-2014 by Visitor2012 because: (no reason given)

This doesn't make sense. Where are the two choices that warrant the descriptor of dualism? You keep saying that things are dualistic but you don't make a solid case as to what is dualistic about it.

Also, relative things cannot be dualistic. The very fact that it is relative means there are infinite states of it. That is more than 2.

Dualism deals with two. An either/or option. Show me an either/or situation. My assertion is that nothing is dualistic because to say that there are only two states to something is simplistic. Prove me wrong.

Sorry, relativism IS duality. It does not deal with quantity (like the TWO you keep insisting on) it is about contrast. contrast is the difference between one and the other. Duality is the contrast between one over the other. The ability to notice the contrast between light and dark, the difference between red and blue, the difference between hot and cold, the difference between happy and sad is because of duality. The reality we experience is all because of our ability to perceive. Perception, by its definition, requires differentiation. The ability to notice the juxtaposition of one over the other is a function of duality. An inherent function of maya. It's the program through which reality can be experienced. In other words, in terms of our mind, duality is EVERYTHING you think, feel and perceive. In terms of our existence, duality is the means through which we can experience existence. Your own life is evidence of that.

Duality does NOT deal with two. It deals with one over the other. In physical realm,the word "dualism" would equate to the word "experience".

I understand that the majority of people believe that duality has to do with emotions. But, emotions are the product of duality, they aren't the root of duality.

reply to post by Krazysh0t

I still fail to see the duality in sense perception. When are you NOT sensing something? Are there ever a time where your eyes are not seeing things?

Yes, they are always seeing things. But it's the recognition of things that is the product of duality. The moment you opened your eyes for the first time and noticed the world around you. That awareness of existence, is because of duality.

reply to post by Visitor2012


The failure to see that duality is just a sideshow and something that is TOLD to you at a point of discernment is telling, duality IS the illusion.

A dimensional argument, a product of nothing versus something.

It is no wonder people cannot see anything, all around us is programming us to believe in duality, I believe much more is at play.

Visitor2012
Duality does NOT deal with two. It deals with one over the other. In physical realm,the word "dualism" would equate to the word "experience".

Dualism

Dualism (from the Latin word duo meaning "two")[1] denotes a state of two parts. The term 'dualism' was originally coined to denote co-eternal binary opposition, a meaning that is preserved in metaphysical and philosophical duality discourse but has been diluted in other usages to indicate a system which contains two essential parts.

Dualism (philosophy of mind)

In philosophy of mind, dualism is the position that mental phenomena are, in some respects, non-physical,[1] or that the mind and body are not identical.[2] Thus, it encompasses a set of views about the relationship between mind and matter, and is contrasted with other positions, such as physicalism, in the mind–body problem.[1][2]

Both of those definitions make use of two things. Hence the dual aspect of the word. So just because you say that duality does not deal with two, doesn't automatically make it so.

reply to post by Krazysh0t


The thread is about non dualism (non duality).
Non dual means not two. ONE without a second/third/fourth/fifth...............

What is non duality?

reply to post by Q33323


Is "triality" based on Yoda's first draft of "Do or do not" quote?

Everything is Void. What does not seem to be Void, comes from Imagination. Imagination is a state of the Void, as is the apprehender of that appearance. Does that help?

Personally, I think all of you got this non-duality thing wrong. Non-duality is the natural state of existence.
There are no fixed borders in existence, constant transformation, blending of this into that, eternal change, nothing that can exist without the other in isolation.

In our philosophical debates, it means that which transcends the mind as a faculty. The mind, as someone already pointed out, is a device for calculus. When logic, duality, reasoning is not needed, the mind should be at rest. When the mind rests, you have returned home to the natural state of existence.

Why is this so hard to wrap your mind around? Well, it is not a thing that can be grasped with the mind. But in order to communicate the idea or concept, we have coined a word "non-duality". Unfortunately, no juice can be extracted from it by thinking about it, it has to be experienced directly.