New Thread To Remind....

[Comet]

The word "non-dualistic" comes from people's attempts to stay in the mystery, away from thinking that they understand. But of course it's a losing battle, because the Tao that can be spoken is not the true Tao.

Dualism is to say that there are differences in things, two-sides etc...

Non-dualism is to deny that dualism exists.... perhaps even that all is ONE OR NOTHING truly exists.

Monism is to see the dualism as the same thing of itself.

I just had to reput that out there.... oh! Lilithu, come back to this again.

 

[the cloaked stranger]

Sorry, perhaps I missed something -- I assumed there are Monists who have this belief system, which would be a movement/group/religion. I could just be making too big an assumption

 

[Comet]

Sorry, perhaps I missed something -- I assumed there are Monists who have this belief system, which would be a movement/group/religion. I could just be making too big an assumption

I have met others who understand my beliefs and even believe in some of them themselves. Yet, we are not all the same.

The Taoists I have spoken to understand such things, but view it in a different manner. I have spoken to Hindus and Buddhists who also understand such things, but there are many sects of such religions.

To say that Monism is an "organized religion" would be wrong, I think. To say it is a group is mis-leading, as there are many monistic thinking people of different views. To say it is a movement, I'd have to disagree. I met very few who even have monistic tendancies, and those who do subscribe to a branch of what is viewed as a religion.

To go back to your comments Cloaked:

It's certainly, to an extent, a biblical concept. God created everything, so nothing is good or evil on its own -- all things serve the will of God, who is in everything. The duality is an imposition created by people, but it has nothing to do with the true nature of the universe.

Such concepts are older than the Bible and those who follow the Biblical religions seem to have little understanding of such a concept (in my opinion). There would be a difference in what you that "nothing is good or evil on its own" and saying there is no good nor evil. (Also, if God created good and evil; then is a construct of people?) There is also a difference in saying "God, who is IN everything", God is everything, God is all things, and God does not exist.

Where I differ from a Taoist and others is to say that: God is all as one as nothing. Many other ways seem to lose the "void" concept which is why I cannot subscribe to such a way of thought. Though many of such ways tend to understand me more and I them, we do differ in some aspects.... as Christians of different denominations differ, or a Methodist to a Catholic, etc...

Monism is really in these days more of a theological concept, not any type of organized religion.... hope that maybe cleared up something.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

It is my present understanding that the void is both the one and the multiplicity. IOW, the void and the oneness and the multiplicity are just three different concepts that represent THAT which is beyond concepts.

The concept of multiplicity comes about due to the human mind limitation of being incapable through thought, of being aware of the underlying unity of the apparent multiplicity.

The concept of oneness comes about due to the meditative mind realization through intuition of the underlying unity of the apparent multiplicity.

The concept of void comes about when the mind is truly still and nothing arises to hide the emptiness/fullness of THAT which is beyond concepts.

As daunting as this teaching may appear, it does not imply extinction, quite the contrary, only those who truly understand realize 'enlightenment', i.e. As in the metaphorical language of the teaching of Jesus, that which is born of flesh must die, and that which is born of spirit must endure.

 

[laughing marmot]

Thou art that
or
Dao art dat

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Scientifically, Monism could be founded as being correct in a sense:

Think of it this way, all of our atoms came from one place - the singularity in which expanded with the Big Bang. Being that we all were one before, we basically are still all one.

Do you consider a piece of bread ripped off your bread but was once part of your bread still of the same bread? If so, you might as well consider us all part of the same thing.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Scientifically, Monism could be founded as being correct in a sense:

Think of it this way, all of our atoms came from one place - the singularity in which expanded with the Big Bang. Being that we all were one before, we basically are still all one.

Do you consider a piece of bread ripped off your bread but was once part of your bread still of the same bread? If so, you might as well consider us all part of the same thing.

Monism isn't exactly what you are claiming...It's more "we're all part of the same universe" than "we're all the same thing".

 

[DreadFish]

Monism isn't exactly what you are claiming...It's more "we're all part of the same universe" than "we're all the same thing".

Well, there are different kinds of monism. Substantial monism does claim that we are all the same thing in the way that we are all made of the same substance.

Absolute monism claims we are all the same thing, period, and often that same thing is called God in some way, shape, or form. The most well known modern example of absolute monism (to me at least) is that of certain sects if Shaivism which claim all is Shiva and any differences or dualities are simply illusory.


EDIT: And seeing as this is the attributive monism sub-forum, most of what I said is null

 

[Comet]

All as One as Nothing....

 

[Comet]

It has been a long time since I checked in on the Monism threads... Most seem to be confused by what it does mean. I read the Substance Monism thread... Monism and Pantheism are two very different things. UGH! I am glad to have Monism on this site, but so sad to see such misinterpretation as to what it is and isn't. Comparisons of light and dark... ugh!

 

[Hevenly Heathen]

Perhaps begining with simple comparisons to other belief structures others may be familar with rather than begining with explaining it as a whole would provide at least some comon start line for others to begin to understand.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

In essence things are not two but one. ...All duality is falsely imagined. —Lankavatara Sutra (Buddhist)

No matter what a deluded man may think he is perceiving, he is really seeing Brahman and nothing else but Brahman. ...This universe, which is superimposed upon Brahman, is nothing but a name. —Shankara (Sanatan Dharma)

If we will see things truly, they are intimates of the One that is bare of any kind of multiplicity and distinction. —Meister Eckhart (Christian)

That Oneness is on the other side of descriptions and states. Nothing but duality enters speech's playing-field. —Rumi (Muslim)

The Tao that is spoken of is not the Eternal Tao. - Lao Tzu (Taoism)

He is the Eternal underlying Unity among things that pass away, pure Consciousness of conscious beings. —Upanishads (Sanatan Dharma)

All the Buddhas and all sentient beings are nothing but the One Mind, besides which nothing exists. —Huang Po (Buddhist)

The light by which the soul is illumined, in order that it may see and truly understand everything...is God Himself. —St. Augustine (Christian)

There is birth, there is death, there is issuing forth, there is entering in.
That through which one passes in and out without seeing its form, that is the Portal of God - Chuang Tzu(Taoism)

Mind comes from this sublime and completely unified source above; it is divided only as it enters into the universe of distinctions. — Menahem Nahum (Jewish)

Caution,...don't eat that fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil....

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

There is another kind of monism: materialism (in the philosophical sense). All that is is matter, and its converted form, energy. There is no god, no spirit, no transcendent nature no matter how defined.

Not that I believe this, mind you, but some do.

 

[Comet]

Perhaps begining with simple comparisons to other belief structures others may be familar with rather than begining with explaining it as a whole would provide at least some comon start line for others to begin to understand.

Indeed. I just stated having this conversation with one of my new instructors at school, she is the head of the Theology Department and an ordained minister in a branch of Christianity. To compare I used two analogies to start:

1. Pantheism believes all is God. That is a Monistic belief. Indeed. Monists are not Pantheists, rather Pantheists are not Monists.

2. Christians view the Trinity as all of the same essence, different aspects but all the same. This is a Monistic belief. Monists are not Christians, rather Christians are not Monists.

3. Any Christian and Pantheist can debate the issue and see the difference between themselves... and Monist just scratches his head as to what the debate is even about.

That got us started.... To read a definition of Monism (in any form) is misleading for it is written by those who don't get it. To defend Monism from a Hindu or Buddhist arena is to do unjustice to it as well. While I love my Hindu, Jain, Tao, and BUDDHIST brothers/sisters; the points made can be argued at "theist" view points. A Monist finds theism irrelevant, as well as atheism. :yes::run:

 

[Comet]

In essence things are not two but one. ...All duality is falsely imagined. —Lankavatara Sutra (Buddhist)

No matter what a deluded man may think he is perceiving, he is really seeing Brahman and nothing else but Brahman. ...This universe, which is superimposed upon Brahman, is nothing but a name. —Shankara (Sanatan Dharma)

If we will see things truly, they are intimates of the One that is bare of any kind of multiplicity and distinction. —Meister Eckhart (Christian)

That Oneness is on the other side of descriptions and states. Nothing but duality enters speech's playing-field. —Rumi (Muslim)

The Tao that is spoken of is not the Eternal Tao. - Lao Tzu (Taoism)

He is the Eternal underlying Unity among things that pass away, pure Consciousness of conscious beings. —Upanishads (Sanatan Dharma)

All the Buddhas and all sentient beings are nothing but the One Mind, besides which nothing exists. —Huang Po (Buddhist)

The light by which the soul is illumined, in order that it may see and truly understand everything...is God Himself. —St. Augustine (Christian)

There is birth, there is death, there is issuing forth, there is entering in.
That through which one passes in and out without seeing its form, that is the Portal of God - Chuang Tzu(Taoism)

Mind comes from this sublime and completely unified source above; it is divided only as it enters into the universe of distinctions. — Menahem Nahum (Jewish)

Caution,...don't eat that fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil....

So lovely! So many included! I love it! blind love to lead the blind and disregard the "sameness" in things. Not that I am an ecumenicalist, I am not. :foot:

 

[NobodyYouKnow]

I shall bring activity to this dead forum.

I've spent the past few minutes trying to establish the difference between Selective Monism and Attributive Monism, being fully aware what 'Absolute Monism' is, so in contrast to Absolute Monism, which would thus apply?

In Hinduism, we have a notion of the Absolute called Brahman. Now, Brahman can have attributes (Saguna Rupam) in which Brahman is eventually realised through the worship of a deity, like Krishna or Shiva with the goal (or no goal 'desire') of finally realising the unity with such a Divinity through worship, Bhakti, meditation and such...

Then, we have the Attribute-less Brahman (Nirguna Rupam) which is the 'definition' of Absolute Monism.

I have a very difficult time making the transition from an Attributive Monist to an Absolute Monist, because people tell me 'they are both exactly the same thing'...now, if they are 'both exactly the same thing' then why this distinction? Why do all these three fora exist?

According to Hindu thought (sruti), there is no difference, so I cannot discuss this concept in 'Hindu circles' because nobody understands me, so I post it here, where people may understand...

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I have a very difficult time making the transition from an Attributive Monist to an Absolute Monist, because people tell me 'they are both exactly the same thing'...now, if they are 'both exactly the same thing' then why this distinction? Why do all these three fora exist?

It doesn't depend on what people tell you, it depends on the present understanding of the one who discusses the subject.

Since Monism is a philosophy rather than a religion, the actual realization of the transcendent oneness that is aspired for in religion is not the goal, at least sfaics.

The realization of the Oneness of All...ie. Brahman, Tao, Nirvana. God (Absolute), Oneness, etc., comes about when the mind is still and free from conceptualizations or distinctions of THAT which is forever beyond such time- space mental 'snap shots'.

So while others may engage you with conceptual sophistry on relative distinctions, my only point is that the actual Unity of the apparent multiplicity will never be realized through words. However it should be pointed out also that the words..."that the actual Unity of the apparent multiplicity will never be realized through words", may offer the best teaching available to help sincere aspirants to realize the actual Unity.

:namaste

 

[NobodyYouKnow]

Thanks ben. That will take a while to digest, but maybe I already have and just don't know it...or maybe I do...anyway, frubal.

 

[Comet]

According to Hindu thought (sruti), there is no difference, so I cannot discuss this concept in 'Hindu circles' because nobody understands me, so I post it here, where people may understand...

I get it or IT gets it... "religions" don't. They never will

Since Monism is a philosophy rather than a religion

Hate to disagree with such an insightful one as you my friend.... but I do.

As a Monist I cannot condone the breaking of it up into three branches... Yet, it is valid from perspective. Thus: All as One as Nothing. It can BE no other way... a consequence of the action.

 

[Comet]

It doesn't depend on what people tell you, it depends on the present understanding of the one who discusses the subject.

Since Monism is a philosophy rather than a religion, the actual realization of the transcendent oneness that is aspired for in religion is not the goal, at least sfaics.

The realization of the Oneness of All...ie. Brahman, Tao, Nirvana. God (Absolute), Oneness, etc., comes about when the mind is still and free from conceptualizations or distinctions of THAT which is forever beyond such time- space mental 'snap shots'.

So while others may engage you with conceptual sophistry on relative distinctions, my only point is that the actual Unity of the apparent multiplicity will never be realized through words. However it should be pointed out also that the words..."that the actual Unity of the apparent multiplicity will never be realized through words", may offer the best teaching available to help sincere aspirants to realize the actual Unity.

:namaste

I miss you man!