Ask a nondual "person"

[SalixIncendium]

Will you elaborate upon this distinction, please?

Most forms of monism draw a dichotomy between what exists and the substance it's derived from. While it's similar to nondualism, with that which is existing has no intrinsic value, that it's borrowed from the substance, monism, in my understanding, is closer to vishishtadvaita, where everything that exists is a part of a single substance. Nondualism makes no such distinction. Everything that exists is an appearance on a substrate.

 

[SalixIncendium]

I am already aware of what Eastern religion teaches about pain and suffering - escapism.

If someone bullies you once, it’s wise to remind yourself that pain is inevitable and to brush it off. If someone makes a pattern of bullying you, and that becomes a regular part of your reality, then it is no longer wise to suppress the desire for a better reality.

Eastern philosophy fails to grasp that pain is like a bully where avoidance is not an option. It will continue to encroach on you more and more over time. Any belief system that teaches that it is wrong to desire for less pain and death in the world should be seriously questioned in my view.

Am I mis-characterizing all of this as escapism? Am I mistaken about pain in comparing it to a bully?

Yes.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Belated Birthday wishes Salix.

My question is, If Mind-body don't exist, then what is experienced? Because Non-Duality says in a way that Atman/One cannot be Objectified. So, what is that which is experienced by one sensually/thoughtfully? And if there no Mind-body exist, how can there be thoughts-objects experienced? Then it means one should not keep trust upon ANY experience?

Nondualism doesn't suggest the mind/body don't exist. Indeed they do exist in relative reality.

In your dream state, does your dream character exist? Most certainly it does from the perspective of your dream character. There are people, buildings, a sky, an earth. All of these things exist in your dream. All of these are experienced, not only by your dream character, but by you the dreamer.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Is nondual something new or has it been around for centuries?

The concept of nondualism appears in the Upanishads, which dates back to about 700-500 bce.

Are there many nondual people?

As I see it, all of them are. They just don't realize it.

 

[Viswa]

Nondualism doesn't suggest the mind/body don't exist. Indeed they do exist in relative reality.

In your dream state, does your dream character exist? Most certainly it does from the perspective of your dream character. There are people, buildings, a sky, an earth. All of these things exist in your dream. All of these are experienced, not only by your dream character, but by you the dreamer.

Okay.
I experience a presence of Snake in a rope. Does that mean Snake is really present in that experience? Yes or No?
I experience/feel a presence of Water in Desert. Does that mean Water is really present in that Mirage? Yes or No?

I feel that they exist at that moment, and so it seems until I get near it. But, other than my feeling/belief (which might be an ignorant feel too), what is their existence relatively? Relative to whom? Me or my Ignorance?
So, the snake and Water is not related to me but derives existence from my Ignorance and so it is said "relatively exist"?

So, Relation itself is due to/depend on Ignorance?

 

[Viswa]

Nondualism doesn't suggest the mind/body don't exist. Indeed they do exist in relative reality.

In your dream state, does your dream character exist? Most certainly it does from the perspective of your dream character. There are people, buildings, a sky, an earth. All of these things exist in your dream. All of these are experienced, not only by your dream character, but by you the dreamer.

As a follow-up to the previous reply, does the dream is related to True Me or Ignorant Me? If Dream is related to Ignorance, then how can a Knowledgable One say that "there is Dream and things exist in Dream"?
How can Brahman say that "there is Relative Relaity and things exist in relative Reality"? Then it means that Brahman is Ignorant and so there happens Relation/Relativity?

Or, the Relative reality doesn't depend on Ignorance and has it's own existence?

 

[SalixIncendium]

Okay.
I experience a presence of Snake in a rope. Does that mean Snake is really present in that experience? Yes or No?
I experience/feel a presence of Water in Desert. Does that mean Water is really present in that Mirage? Yes or No?

No. Only the rope and the sand are present. The snake and the water are errors. However, you still experienced the rope as a snake and the desert as water until you realized the error, did you not?

I feel that they exist at that moment, and so it seems until I get near it. But, other than my feeling/belief (which might be an ignorant feel too), what is their existence relatively? Relative to whom? Me or my Ignorance?
So, the snake and Water is not related to me but derives existence from my Ignorance and so it is said "relatively exist"?

So, Relation itself is due to/depend on Ignorance?

The water and snake exist as a result of your ignorance to the rope and the mirage. Their appearance is temporary until ignorance is overcome and the rope and mirage are realized.

 

[SalixIncendium]

As a follow-up to the previous reply, does the dream is related to True Me or Ignorant Me? If Dream is related to Ignorance, then how can a Knowledgable One say that "there is Dream and things exist in Dream"?
How can Brahman say that "there is Relative Relaity and things exist in relative Reality"? Then it means that Brahman is Ignorant and so there happens Relation/Relativity?

Or, the Relative reality doesn't depend on Ignorance and has it's own existence?

I have to get ready to leave for work. I'll come back to this when I have time.

 

[Zwing]

(In non-dualism) Everything that exists is an appearance on a substrate.

So, in your view, the “appearances” are not real, while in the alternative view they are real emanations (or manifestations) of the substrate?

 

[Viswa]

No. Only the rope and the sand are present. The snake and the water are errors. However, you still experienced the rope as a snake and the desert as water until you realized the error, did you not?

If the Experience and the Snake/Water is itself is based on an error, why bother to define such experience as 'relative reality'/'appearance' if such experience is an outcome of error?
It's like if a child experienced a feeling of Ghost while looking at a shadow, does that mean Ghost appeared or Ghost exists relatively? The Ghost itself is a misunderstanding, so how come the Ghost appear/exist relatively?

The water and snake exist as a result of your ignorance to the rope and the mirage. Their appearance is temporary until ignorance is overcome and the rope and mirage are realized.

So, when you said "Their appearance is temporary until ignorance is overcome" you mean that Appearance is based on Ignorance. Right? If the seed itself is a Ignorance, why to create a concept about the growth/maturity of the plant from that seed? Whatever follows up/grows from that seed is also made of Ignorance, and if one attains knowledge how can one say that "appearance/relative reality" if it is a growth from that Ignorance seed?
Also, why I ask these because, I feel truly that these concepts not really leads non-dual seekers towards liberation but only creates more bondage creating a Belief that as if there is an appearance of snake as Real (like the Child believe that Ghost really appeared).

 

[Zwing]

Yes but you are arriving at better and better realities! This aversion to seeking a better reality and better world feels so lifeless and defeatist to me.

You should realize that not all who subscribe to non-duality/monism have this same approach to life. Salix has approached the philosophy from a mystical standpoint, and so has a very Eastern/Hindu understanding of this philosophy, which includes supernatural concepts by definition. I have approached the philosophy from an intellectual standpoint. Monism occurred to me long after I became an atheist, and so there is no supernatural or idealist aspect to it for me. I do not believe on Samasara, or in elk sting the angst that I experience in my life. I like my angst, feeling it makes me manly and properly aggressive. I do, however, believe that there is one ultimate, essential reality which underlies all of subjective reality. I will not go through a succession of “lives” before I can attain oneness with this reality. My non-duality is entirely materialistic. My view of the Monad, or “Brahman” in Hindu tradition, is that it is no kind of “god”, is not a “being” of any description, has no consciousness, but rather is an insubstantial entity which underlies all making all things simple manifestations thereof. My being merely the type of Monadic manifestation which is a biological organism, when I die to this life, I die and cease to exist. The substance… the elements….which constitute my being and the being of all other things may or may not return to the substrate Monad after the last gigantic black hole has consumed all other black holes and eventually consumes itself, causing the end of our universe. In the meantime, while I live my subjective existence, it is best for me to strive, to feel deeply, to be angry and envious, to be sometimes as calm as the Buddha and other times as enraged as Achilles, to want to kill my enemies rather than hide in a closet, to both delight and agonize in this subjective life, to not avoid delight and agony, and otherwise to live as the type of being that nature has designed me to be. For me, understanding that the universe is non-dual is to realize the ultimate truth of things, and that is enough. To me, the concept of mass-energy equivalence is the ultimate expression of monistic fact that we have; it seems to say that both matter and energy, the two basic types of things in the universe under which all things are subsumed, are merely differing expressions of the same underlying “stuff”. If E=mc^2 is a valid argument, as it seems to be, then it provides evidence for the truth of non-duality. So, for Salix, non-duality is a means to peace…to bliss, for myself it merely represents apparent truth.

 

[SalixIncendium]

As a follow-up to the previous reply, does the dream is related to True Me or Ignorant Me? If Dream is related to Ignorance, then how can a Knowledgable One say that "there is Dream and things exist in Dream"?

I don't know what "True Me" or "Ignorant Me" is with regard to a dream. I spoke of your dream character and the dreamer. Can you please ask the question using these term so I don't have to guess what you mean?

How can Brahman say that "there is Relative Relaity and things exist in relative Reality"? Then it means that Brahman is Ignorant and so there happens Relation/Relativity?

Or, the Relative reality doesn't depend on Ignorance and has it's own existence?

Relative reality is an appearance in Brahman, just as your dream is an appearance to the dreamer.

Does a dream have its own existence? No. It appears in you the dreamer.

 

[SalixIncendium]

So, in your view, the “appearances” are not real, while in the alternative view they are real emanations (or manifestations) of the substrate?

This is my understanding, yes.

 

[SalixIncendium]

If the Experience and the Snake/Water is itself is based on an error, why bother to define such experience as 'relative reality'/'appearance' if such experience is an outcome of error?
It's like if a child experienced a feeling of Ghost while looking at a shadow, does that mean Ghost appeared or Ghost exists relatively? The Ghost itself is a misunderstanding, so how come the Ghost appear/exist relatively?

Who defined the experience as "relative reality?"

So, when you said "Their appearance is temporary until ignorance is overcome" you mean that Appearance is based on Ignorance. Right? If the seed itself is a Ignorance, why to create a concept about the growth/maturity of the plant from that seed? Whatever follows up/grows from that seed is also made of Ignorance, and if one attains knowledge how can one say that "appearance/relative reality" if it is a growth from that Ignorance seed?
Also, why I ask these because, I feel truly that these concepts not really leads non-dual seekers towards liberation but only creates more bondage creating a Belief that as if there is an appearance of snake as Real (like the Child believe that Ghost really appeared).

None of this "really appeared." They were an error based on ignorance of what was real.

 

[Zwing]

This is my understanding, yes.

Ah, I take the other view. I think that you and I and the rock of Gibraltar are real, but composed of types of matter which are manifestations of the substrate reality. For the duration of this universe, all things, both matter and energy, in it are real, but lack immutability. Immutability is only a property of the substrate, called variously Monad or Brahman.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Ah, I take the other view. I think that you and I and the rock of Gibraltar are real, but composed of types of matter which are manifestations of the substrate reality. For the duration of this universe, all things, both matter and energy, in it are real, but lack immutability. Immutability is only a property of the substrate, called variously Monad or Brahman.

I think you've been spending too much time with @Aupmanyav.

But as with him, I respect your views.

 

[Valjean]

From an advaitist standpoint, there are multiple, subjective realities, of inreasing homogeneity, experienced in different states of consciousness. There is a single, unified, objective, Real reality

Neither the sand, rope, water or snake are Real in expanded realities. There is only the experiencer experiencing itself.
At the time one's dreaming of them, though, from 2nd-state (REM) consciousness, they and the dreamer are all real; all part of the subjective, dualistic reality of the dreamer.

From the Ultimate, objective, Real Reality, though, all are unified into a single Unity.

 

[SalixIncendium]

From an advaitist standpoint, there are multiple, subjective realities, of inreasing homogeneity, experienced in different states of consciousness. There is a single, unified, objective, Real reality

Neither the sand, rope, water or snake are Real in expanded realities. There is only the experiencer experiencing itself.
At the time one's dreaming of them, though, from 2nd-state (REM) consciousness, they and the dreamer are all real; all part of the subjective, dualistic reality of the dreamer.

From the Ultimate, objective, Real Reality, though, all are unified into a single Unity.

If I could, I would give this post a "winner." Thanks for explaining this better than I did.

 

[Zwing]

I think you've been spending too much time with @Aupmanyav.

Haha. I know that he advises to “be your own guru”, but I think he’s my “interim guru”…my “guru for the time being”. He first introduced me to Advaita, which blew my mind inasmuch as it mirrored my own thinking. I think that neither of us are very ‘mystically oriented’ fellows.

 

[Treasure Hunter]

..

From an advaitist standpoint, there are multiple, subjective realities, of inreasing homogeneity, experienced in different states of consciousness. There is a single, unified, objective, Real reality

Neither the sand, rope, water or snake are Real in expanded realities. There is only the experiencer experiencing itself.
At the time one's dreaming of them, though, from 2nd-state (REM) consciousness, they and the dreamer are all real; all part of the subjective, dualistic reality of the dreamer.

From the Ultimate, objective, Real Reality, though, all are unified into a single Unity.

The problem is that when people become aware that this is the end of the story, they think they can just skip all the previous chapters and arrive at the end. All they have to do is call themselves a non-dualist, detach from their desires, and ta-da!

This is not how it works.