Ask a nondual "person"

[SalixIncendium]

I really (no pun intended) want to go all skeptical on that so here is as inclusive as I can do it. That works for you and I don't doubt that. But in practice that is no what matters for 2 or more humans. That is how we treat each other and that is another practice.
So yes, metaphysics/ontology is important and but ethics is where the rubber hits the road.

When one realizes that the beings that appear as "not you" are actually of the same nature...of the same being as "you," one treats others with same the love and respect with which they treat themselves. Now how is that for ethics?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

When one realizes that the beings that appear as "not you" are actually of the same nature...of the same being as "you," one treats others with same the love and respect with which they treat themselves. Now how is that for ethics?

Like it. I try to do the same, though I am in effect of a different cognitive culture. But the fun part is my wife is a certified professional person of that ethics in practice and that is a bit more complex in practice when you hold actually legal authority over another human, because she has to treat those with love and respect that has no love and respect.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Like it. I try to do the same, though I am in effect of a different cognitive culture. But the fun part is my wife is a certified professional person of that ethics in practice and that is a bit more complex in practice when you hold actually legal authority over another human, because she has to treat those with love and respect that has no love and respect.

I hold legal authority over (which is to say I manage) several people, and whether or not I like them as a person, I love and respect all of them, because I recognize the divinity in each of them. Many of them are just in throes of the bondage of ignorance.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I hold legal authority over (which is to say I manage) several people, and whether or not I like them as a person, I love and respect all of them, because I recognize the divinity in each of them. Many of them are just in throes of the bondage of ignorance.

Yeah and for the Western culture of Rationality I had to learn to be one of those for which with that, I am irrational with evidence.

 

[Zwing]

You have pointed a gret example here. Let's take the Dyslexic.

It is an imperfect as an analogy to universal duality, but it does exemplify one aspect of that duality: the essential substantiality of things within Vyavaharika, and the dependence of those things in Vyavaharika upon some corresponding thing in Paramartika. Where the analogy breaks down is in the fact that E in our hypothetical Paramartika is not one and undifferentiable from the other letters of the alphabet, while Brahman is, simply, one.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It is an imperfect as an analogy to universal duality, but it does exemplify one aspect of that duality: the essential substantiality of things within Vyavaharika, and the dependence of those things in Vyavaharika upon some corresponding thing in Paramartika. Where the analogy breaks down is in the fact that E in our hypothetical Paramartika is not one and undifferentiable from the other letters of the alphabet, while Brahman is, simply, one.

Two in practice, not matter how unreally that is, because it is really real and true as unreal, otherwise you wouldn't experience this post, but you do, right?

 

[RestlessSoul]

@RestlessSoul​

Here is a trick that I stole from some of the atheists.​

They are so proud when they explain that for all the versions of what reality really is as different versions of God, they believe in one less than believers in God. That is correct, but most of them also believe in a version of what reality really is. The joke is as a skeptic, I believe in one less than them, because I don't know, but they do.
So here it is for knowledge:
There are many different versions of with knowledge I know what reality really is and that is not just some God believers, that do that.
So I do one version less than all those with knowledge, because they all individually know which one is the correct one, but I don't know that, so I do one less as for knowing, which one is correct.

I mean, they, the scientific skeptics, taught me well, as to be skeptical, to the point that I figure out that none of us are special, in that I know as correct where everybody else knows incorrectly.
But I am not supposed to say that aloud, because they as a social we for what ever version of Knowledge hold authority over what reality really is and that can't be doubted. BTW that is the joke of the 2 main versions of philosophy. The universal positive answer with rationality versus the limit of even that.

So these debates of what reality really is, is great training in learning the limits of cognition, but the problem is that some people treat as really real for the world as such.

Very hard to get a materialist to recognise that theirs is a philosophical position every but as much as idealism, scientific realism etc. And many on here who declare themselves to be “realists” have given very little thought to what that label means or implies.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Very hard to get a materialist to recognise that theirs is a philosophical position every but as much as idealism, scientific realism etc. And many on here who declare themselves to be “realists” have given very little thought to what that label means or implies.

Now this is a derail and @SalixIncendium just remove it and do your moderator thing if you have to. But basically if we have to play fallacies, then it is the fallacy of concreteness.
Now that doesn't mean they are wrong or all that, it just means they cope differently and in practice they can become dangerous just like any other universally dogmatic believer in the objectively really real for all things including rationality as the then objectively really real way to do ethics.
That is their "ignorance". I do get it, but I don't do judge them as wrong. I just treat them differently than they demand with evidence.

 

[Viswa]

Yeah, presence of God, creation of the universe, creation of living things including humans, the need for God to embark on these things.

This can be divided into two, One is "Presence of God", and Second is "Creation of universe, creation of living things, etc.".

One, Scriptures really gives Evidence for "Presence of God", but it says that you have to cultivate only One thing - "Belief". Only if you Believe that Scriptures can point you to God, Only if you belief that there is Presence of God, you can see the evidence of Presence of God. If you don't believe that there is Presence of God, and if you research Scriptures with that belief of "Absence of God" , then obviously you will come to a conclusion that there is no presence of God.
Belief is the very important One which every Theistic Scriptures says. If you say "I will Believe only if I see Evidence", then you won't get any evidence for believing. But, if you Believe "God is Present", then you will 100% get the Evidence for the same.

About the Second, You have understood Advaita Vedanta. What more evidence do you seek, when there is no real creation at all?

It is the inherent property of 'what exists' which gives rise to appearances.

Would you like to speak about this? How you came to this conclusion?

 

[Yerda]

Inspired by @VoidCat's Ask a nonbinary person thread. Ask me anything nondual (or about nonduality of you so wish). Keep in mind I'm only speaking from my own experience and no one else's and I don't speak on behalf of any religion or philosophy. Flood the thread with any argument you wish. I'm game. If you want to attack me or my view, I won't put you on ignore, but I will ignore you. However, I won't ignore you if you tell me I (mind and body) don't exist. I might even agree with you.

Do you ever suspect that you're indulging in self-deception or doubt that you have really arrived at knowledge of your true nature?

 

[Zwing]

So why is the universe divided into molecules, atoms, particles etc? Why does the underlying unity manifest itself in plurality? And why, to quote Stephen Hawking, does the universe go to all the trouble of existing in the first place?

The ultimate question. I can’t answer “why”, and perhaps there is no answer to that question. To ask “why” is to demand an underlying purpose, and I personally understand ultimate reality (“Brahman”) there probably is no purpose. I do not conceive of Brahman as a “god”, but rather as the truth of all things…as “ultimate, absolute reality”. To my understanding, Brahman is mindless, and so can and does not formulate aim, design, purpose, or intent. A more theistic Advaitin might disagree with this, in conceiving of Brahman as God or a god.

That having been said, I think that the illusiory way that things in Vyavaharika, in the subjective “world”, appear to us at least partially derives from a fault within our physiology of perception. The fact that we perceive things in an illusory manner is readily known. When I look at you, I see you as a thing of great physical substance, has a “solid” being. This is an illusion. Your body is composed of atoms of various types. The chemists have informed us that atoms, on average, are 99.9999999999996% empty space. So why, when I see you, do I not “see right through you”? Why do I see you as a solid substance if you are mostly empty space? It is a fault in my ability to perceive which causes this. We cannot readily “see” or otherwise sensibly experience Brahman partly (or mostly?) because of the limitations of our perceptive anatomy.

 

[Viswa]

It is an imperfect as an analogy to universal duality, but it does exemplify one aspect of that duality: the essential substantiality of things within Vyavaharika, and the dependence of those things in Vyavaharika upon some corresponding thing in Paramartika. Where the analogy breaks down is in the fact that E in our hypothetical Paramartika is not one and undifferentiable from the other letters of the alphabet, while Brahman is, simply, one.

Yup. True. That's where Metaphor of "Rope and Snake" Given in scriptures. I just tried to show the same in your example.

Like your example of E, it is Rope. And example of Image Ǝ, it is Snake. Can you say Snake has real Existence of Rope, when one misunderstood Rope as Snake?. Nope. Only Rope is Present but not Snake, and looks like Snake because of one's misunderstanding/Ignorance.

You may ask "How about Image Snake but not Real Snake?". That's where Vasistha explains briefly, (and I get to know that Tripura Rahasya also says the Same, even Sankhya).
The Image of Snake is present in Rope Always in a subtle Manner (like how Unmanifested Prakriti/Avyakta be). But, out of Ignorance, one thinks Rope Appears as Snake. Not so. Rope Never appears as Snake, though it contains Image of Snake.

Like Monalisa Portrait. Say, first there is an Empty Portrait, and Monalisa Picture appears upon such Portrait. Can you say that "There is Real Monalisa Appearing on Portrait"? Nope. The Truth is, The Image of Monalisa is present in Empty Portrait in subtle Manner always, and lookslike appearing upon such Portrait because of Ignorance of Nature of such Portrait.

Like Castle in Clouds. First, there is just Clouds. Then one sees appearance of Castle in Clouds. Can one say, "There is Real Castle present as much as Presence of Clouds"? Nope. Only Clouds is present containing Every form/Images. And those Images looks like Appearing upon Clouds because of Ignorance.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The ultimate question. I can’t answer “why”, and perhaps there is no answer to that question. To ask “why” is to demand an underlying purpose, and I personally understand ultimate reality (“Brahman”) there probably is no purpose. I do not conceive of Brahman as a “god”, but rather as the truth of all things…as “ultimate, absolute reality”. To my understanding, Brahman is mindless, and so can and does not formulate aim, design, purpose, or intent. A more theistic Advaitin might disagree with this, in conceiving of Brahman as God or a god.

That having been said, I think that the illusiory way that things in Vyavaharika, in the subjective “world”, appear to us at least partially derives from a fault within our physiology of perception. The fact that we perceive things in an illusory manner is readily known. When I look at you, I see you as a thing of great physical substance, has a “solid” being. This is an illusion. Your body is composed of atoms of various types. The chemists have informed us that atoms, on average, are 99.9999999999996% empty space. So why, when I see you, do I not “see right through you”? Why do I see you as a solid substance if you are mostly empty space? It is a fault in my ability to perceive which causes this. We cannot readily “see” or otherwise sensibly experience Brahman partly (or mostly?) because of the limitations of our perceptive anatomy.

Because biological evolution is not about truth. It is about the replication of the fittest genes and that is in a sense pragmatic. There is no purpose, only if works good enough, it works.

 

[Zwing]

Can you say Snake has real Existence of Rope, when one misunderstood Rope as Snake?. Nope.

But, what I am saying is that the subjectively perceived snake has a basis in the objective reality of the rope. Conversely, the figures appearing in your dream or my dream have no basis in anything real. They are not manifestations of an underlying reality, they ate simply “mirages”. The things that we perceive in Vyavaharika are not mirages, as they have a basis in the underlying reality of Brahman. Rather, they are illusions as to their true nature, because we are unable to perceive their true nature (in the singular, because all things in Vyavaharika have only one true nature, right?).

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

But, what I am saying is that the subjectively perceived snake has a basis in the reality of the rope. Conversely, the figures appearing in your dream or my dream have no basis in anything real. They are not manifestations of an underlying reality, they ate simply “mirages”.

But they are real mirages otherwise you wouldn't experience them and talk about them. The really ontologically unreal is only real as the idea of it being really unreal, yet that is real and has effect as you can observe here in this thread.

 

[Viswa]

The ultimate question. I can’t answer “why”, and perhaps there is no answer to that question.

Why does the underlying unity manifest itself in plurality? And why, to quote Stephen Hawking, does the universe go to all the trouble of existing in the first place?

As Zwing said, One can't answer this question. I will say here "why" based on my understanding reading Scriptures.

One can't answer this question, not because there is no answer for this question, but the question itself is wrong. Why because, there happened No Manifestation, there happened no "Existence" of World (but only presence of Image of World/forms not material presence), there happened no "Appearance".
Only out of Ignorance one thinks all these happened and raises these questions, but truly these never happened. That's why Buddha never said any answers to these questions (or related teachings in his life) like "existence/manifestation of world", but just asked to be detached.

You know, I was also raising these questions. But, later I came to understand that, I was raising these questions because I "Believed" that "Manifestation/world/etc. really happening", and only then understood such Ignorance.

Only if We believe that "There is a Snake in Rope", we will ask questions like "How do the Snake came upon Rope? Why it came upon Rope? Does the Snake go to all trouble of existing in the first place?, etc.". But, question why one trust/believe that "there is snake", if it is just misunderstanding.

 

[Aupmanyav]

So why is the universe divided into molecules, atoms, particles etc? Why does the underlying unity manifest itself in plurality? And why, to quote Stephen Hawking, does the universe go to all the trouble of existing in the first place?

It seems like that, but it is not really that way. Have you heard above waves/particles?
Hawkings had a nice theory about it - "Creation from nothing".

 

[Viswa]

But, what I am saying is that the subjectively perceived snake has a basis in the objective reality of the rope. Conversely, the figures appearing in your dream or my dream have no basis in anything real. They are not manifestations of an underlying reality, they ate simply “mirages”. The things that we perceive in Vyavaharika are not mirages, as they have a basis in the underlying reality of Brahman. Rather, they are illusions as to their true nature, because we are unable to perceive their true nature (in the singular, because all things in Vyavaharika have only one true nature, right?).

Because they have no True Nature. These World/etc., are just like "Mirages". These are Images. They have no Existence of their Own.

Let's take example of "whirlpool in water"/ "Castle in Clouds". Can you say, Whirlpool has a basis in Water? or Castle has basis in Clouds?

 

[Zwing]

But they are real mirages otherwise you wouldn't experience them and talk about them.

Language, with its inherent ambiguity, is failing us here. Let me try to clarify the meaning that I am attributing to words. When I say “illusion” pertaining to Vyavaharika, I mean the misperception of something actually present. An illusion in Vyavaharika is a misperception of an emanation of Brahman. The dream figures are not this, but rather are mere experiences involving the apparent perception of something not present.

 

[Zwing]

Because they have no True Nature. These World/etc., are just like "Mirages". These are Images. They have no Existence of their Own.

See above.