Ask a nondual "person"

[Viswa]

Yeah, IMHO, any kind of theism has the same problem, no evidence. That is why I became an atheist.

Sorry I couldn't understand. No evidence of what? Presence of God?

 

[Viswa]

Hey, @SalixIncendium, good evening!

Pertaining to this, I would like to expound a bit. My conception of the illusion of duality which Advaita indicates is of a particular nature. The indication seems to be that something real in Vyavaharika is perceived by living beings in this world as different than the true nature which underlies the perceived form. The entities perceived in the world appear differentiated, but they are still real as they are manifestations of an objective reality. For instance, if I am dyslexic, I will perceive the typed letter E as looking like Ǝ. This is an illusiory perception on my part; the Ǝ here is an illusion. Yet, it is still real. I can only perceive the illusiory Ǝ because the E exists, which means that both of these are different forms of the same reality. Now, the illusion of differentiation which gives rise to the anppearence of duality operates similarly. A tree looks different to us from a bolt of lightning. Both are manifestations in Vyavaharika of Brahman. This means that there are two emanations (for lack of a better word) of Brahman which are perceived differently by us here in Vyavaharika. Both of the emanations are real. They are both real in Paramartika which is when they are perceived truly (objectively), and they are both real in Vyavaharika, when they are perceived falsely (subjectively). These two emanations of Brahman which present the subjective illusion of a tree and a lightning bolt in Vyavaharika, have both reality and existence in both Vyavaharika and in Paramartika. The difference between either of these two emanations of Brahman and the dream figures from my dream which you posited earlier, are that the dream figures are not emanations of Brahman, and so have no reality either in Vyavaharika or in Paramartika. They are merely the transitory result of the firing of neurons in my brain, and have no existence independent from my brain, upon which they are utterly dependent. This is why they are not analogous to emanations of Brahman within Vyavaharika, in my view.

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

This Dyslexic is nothing but same as Ignorance. It's not that letter E looks Ǝ naturally, but because of Ignorance one perceives such Appearance. Truly, E remains as E, and one's experience of appearance of E as Ǝ is because of One's Ignorance. So, one cannot say the experience of Ǝ is real as presence of E.

Absolute is E, and if one perceive's E as Ǝ saying that "Subjective/Vyavaharika is an Appearance of Objectivity/Paramarthika", it's not true because one perceive's E as Ǝ only due to Ignorance, and if such Ignorance vanish there only remains E and no experience of appearance of Ǝ in future (not after Jivan Mukti but after Videha Mukti which scriptures say).

Edit - As I said in the example of Computer before, the Computer remains containing Images in subtle Manner, but Images Appear only out of Ignorance of switching On of Computer.
Likewise, the Image of Ǝ is present in subtle Manner in Presence/Existence of E, and one Experience such appearance of Ǝ only out of Ignorance as such Image Ǝ only remains subtle in presence of E and such image Ǝ can appear upon E only when Disorderly Eye (Ignorance) present, but truly only E present and such Image Ǝ never appear upon E.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Sorry I couldn't understand. No evidence of what? Presence of God?

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

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yeah, IMHO, any kind of theism has the same problem, no evidence. That is why I became an atheist.

Well, I became a skeptic, because of reductio ad absurdum. If everything is One as real and existent, then when I think, say and hold two, then I am unreal and non-existent, but nobody have been able to explain that they can know as true the unreal and non-existent.
So I am religious, because I believe in and am the unreal and non-existent as two in effect. And that seems to be true and real as unreal and non-existent. That is my proof as per reductio ad absurdum. You are the truth and I am the proof of the really real false.
Go figure. You are all the positives and I am all the negatives and that is really real.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Nothing to figure out. I have figured out my views and I am happy with them. I hope you too have figured out your views and are happy with them.
That is only what counts. I too am very religious, although I disbelieve in existence of any deity or soul.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Nothing to figure out. I have figured out my views and I am happy with them. I hope you too have figured out your views and are happy with them.

But happy is an illusion. It is all an illusion and that is really real to the point, that I didn't write this. That is how unreal this is.

 

[Aupmanyav]

In the transactional, pragmatic, perceived, make-believe, transitory, 'anicca', 'anatta', mayavic, illusory world; happiness and sorrow exist. Good and bad exist. Friends and enemies exist. It is the world of multiplicity, not just duality. And we are writing what we have written even if it may be make-believe.

 

[RestlessSoul]

In the transactional, pragmatic, perceived, make-believe, transitory, 'anicca', 'anatta', mayavic, illusory world; happiness and sorrow exist. Good and bad exist. Friends and enemies exist. It is the world of multiplicity, not just duality. And we are writing what we have written even if it may be make-believe.

So there is no reality without plurality? But transitory reality emerges from a fundamental underlying unity?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So there is no reality without plurality? But transitory reality emerges from a deeper, underlying unity?

It makes sense in a cognitive way, but it is unknown in practice, because "I know something" can't really be done with out those 3 parts and unity is "one/I one/know one/something" is "one" and I just answer two. We are playing if everything is X, test if you can do non-X as Y.
The problem is that same with all version of everything is X, including natural/physical/material or God. I just check if I can do that differently and leave it at that.
Now I have my faith, but that is my faith as mine.

 

[Aupmanyav]

So there is no reality without plurality? But transitory reality emerges from a fundamental underlying unity?

I agree with your second sentence but not with the first. Reality exists in spite of seeming plurality.

 

[RestlessSoul]

I agree with your second sentence but not with the first. Reality exists in spite of seeming plurality.

Well what you seem to be saying here is that reality is unity, while plurality is illusory?

But it’s plurality, real or illusory, which defines our experience as humans. Our subjective consciousness percieves the world as a fragmented kaleidoscope of light, sound and sensation. So the question we surely must ask is, what power, what will, gives rise to this unfolding tapestry, and why? And even more so, why am I awake - or asleep and dreaming if you prefer - to witness it all?

 

[RestlessSoul]

It makes sense in a cognitive way, but it is unknown in practice, because "I know something" can't really be done with out those 3 part and unity is "one/I one/know one/something" is "one" and I just answer two. We are playing if everything is X, test if you can do non-X as Y.
The problem is that same with all version of everything is X, including natural/physical/material or God. I just check if I can do that differently and leave it at that.
Now I have my faith, but that is my faith as mine.

Yeah, I get that. I would just say that, for myself as someone who inclines towards philosophical monism, that there are parts of the whole; but no whole parts. Everything in isolation, including each of us, is necessarily incomplete, unless it is integrated in the whole.

 

[Aupmanyav]

So the question we surely must ask is, what power, what will, gives rise to this unfolding tapestry, and why? And even more so, why am I awake - or asleep and dreaming if you prefer - to witness it all?

It is the inherent property of 'what exists' which gives rise to appearances.
Every atom in the universe (and there are 10^80 in the known universe which is 5% of all mass in the universe - Google Search) and its parts dance, even in a stone or a dead body.
That is how your body is constituted. It needs rest, therefore you sleep. The memory needs defragmentation, therefore you dream. Otherwise it would not last.

 

[RestlessSoul]

It is the inherent property of 'what exists' which gives rise to appearances. Every atom in the universe (and there are 10^80 in the known universe (Google Search) which is 5% of all energy in the universe) and its parts dance, even in a stone or a dead body.

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?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

@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.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Hey, @SalixIncendium, good evening!

Pertaining to this, I would like to expound a bit. My conception of the illusion of duality which Advaita indicates is of a particular nature. The indication seems to be that something real in Vyavaharika is perceived by living beings in this world as different than the true nature which underlies the perceived form. The entities perceived in the world appear differentiated, but they are still real as they are manifestations of an objective reality. For instance, if I am dyslexic, I will perceive the typed letter E as looking like Ǝ. This is an illusiory perception on my part; the Ǝ here is an illusion. Yet, it is still real. I can only perceive the illusiory Ǝ because the E exists, which means that both of these are different forms of the same reality.

Now, the illusion of differentiation which gives rise to the anppearence of duality operates similarly. A tree looks different to us from a bolt of lightning. Both are manifestations in Vyavaharika of Brahman. This means that there are two emanations (for lack of a better word) of Brahman which are perceived differently by us here in Vyavaharika. Both of the emanations are real. They are both real in Paramartika which is when they are perceived truly (objectively), and they are both real in Vyavaharika, when they are perceived falsely (subjectively). These two emanations of Brahman which present the subjective illusion of a tree and a lightning bolt in Vyavaharika, have both reality and existence in both Vyavaharika and in Paramartika. An emanation of Brahman is something real within Vyavaharika, though illusory as to its nature by being apparently differentiatble, just as it is real and utterly undifferentiated within Paramartika.

The difference between either of these two emanations of Brahman and the dream figures from my dream which you posited earlier, are that the dream figures are not emanations of Brahman, and so have no reality either in Vyavaharika or in Paramartika. They are merely the transitory result of the firing of neurons in my brain, and have no existence independent from my brain, upon which they are utterly dependent. This is why they are not analogous to emanations of Brahman within Vyavaharika, in my view.

Trees, Es, and lightening bolts are appearances. They appear in Paramartika, just as a dream appears in one's mind. Trees, etc. are no more 'manifestations' of Brahman than a dream is an 'manifestation' of you. These things appear as a result of time/space/causation (Maya) and are as 'real' from the perspective of Paramartika as a dream is 'real' from the perspective of vyavaharika.

This has been my own experience validated by what Advaita Vedanta teaches.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yeah, I get that. I would just say that, for myself as someone who inclines towards philosophical monism, that there are parts of the whole; but no whole parts. Everything in isolation, including each of us, is necessarily incomplete, unless it is integrated in the whole.

Yeah, my version is that Everything is the same, similar and/or different for everything, something, something else and/or nothing for all the ways of making sense of that, including that it seems to add up, but it only seems to do that.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Trees, Es, and lightening bolts are appearances. They appear in Paramartika, just as a dream appears in one's mind. Trees, etc. are no more 'manifestations' of Brahman than a dream is an 'manifestation' of you. These things appear as a result of time/space/causation (Maya) and are as 'real' from the perspective of Paramartika as a dream is 'real' from the perspective of vyavaharika.

This has been my own experience validated by what Advaita Vedanta teaches.

I get it and yet I am different, in that I do real differently. The illusion is real, because that is all we have.

 

[SalixIncendium]

I get it and yet I am different, in that I do real differently. The illusion is real, because that is all we have.

The illusion is real from the perspective of transactional reality (vyavaharika), yes, but not from the perspective of Paramartika (absolute reality).

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

From the perspective of transactional reality (vyavaharika), yes, but not from the perspective of Paramartika (absolute reality).

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.