I'm hearing more and more about nonduality these days. What the fuck is it? I think some people out there have convinced themselves that they are ethereal, disembodied, floating pervasive consciousnesses. Either that, or I am entirely missing the point, and I have no idea what I'm talking about.
What do you think about 'nonduality'?
What this fuck IS nonduality?
Just because you call something a branch doesn't mean it stops being part of the tree.
It's conceptual thought that actively creates duality. Non-duality is the basic state of things if you do not actively practise this division.
>I think some people out there have convinced themselves that they are ethereal, disembodied, floating pervasive consciousnesses
What you're describing is called subject/object distinction.
So monism?
Well, there is no 'one' either without conceptual differentiation.
If there's something at all and you do not separate it into many, then it is one. Call it Universe if you want.
t. Parmenides
If there is undifferentiated existence numbers do not come into it, not even one. Oneness is already a conceptual approach that already implies multitude by the dichotomous way language works. There is no one or many if you just observe. One or many only come into play when you try to conceptualise.
Oneness implies lack of differentiation.
>There is no one or many if you just observe. One or many only come into play when you try to conceptualise.
You can't actually observe without any conceptualisation. See Wittgenstein.
>Oneness implies lack of differentiation.
All conceptualisation implies differentiation. As soon as you are speaking about it you are getting caught up in grammatical conventions and applying those to existence itself, mistaking the map for the territory. That's why you can't accurately describe non-duality because description itself inherently dualises. That's why the zen lads have all those zany anecdotes, to try and illustrate something that can't strictly be put into words.
>You can't actually observe without any conceptualisation. See Wittgenstein.
I disagree since I have done so myself.
As long as we are talking, we are conceptualising anyway, so you don't need to preach your Zen wisdom constantly. However we can conceptualise the act of non-conceptualisation and call the result "one" as in "the lack of two". Nothing substantially changes if you don't like the word "one" in this context because it would imply come different conceptualisation in your opinion than in mine.
>I disagree since I have done so myself.
How do you know you aren't conceptualising when you are observing? It seems you'd need to conceptualise the act of not-conceptualising at least
existence is a spectrum
>As long as we are talking, we are conceptualising anyway, so you don't need to preach your Zen wisdom constantly.
Yes, as long as we are talking we can't really answer the question.
>However we can conceptualise the act of non-conceptualisation and call the result "one" as in "the lack of two". Nothing substantially changes if you don't like the word "one" in this context because it would imply come different conceptualisation in your opinion than in mine.
I dislike the baggage the notion of oneness comes with. It implies unity and it implies substantiality. To call nondualism monism is potentially leading down the wrong path, I think.
>How do you know you aren't conceptualising when you are observing? It seems you'd need to conceptualise the act of not-conceptualising at least
That seems to me like you're saying you need to conceptualise an absence of clouds to observe a clear sky.
>as we are talking we can't really answer the question
This is what I dislike about eastern philosophical traditions, even if they are right in many ways. Answering the question already implies talking and conceptualising.
>That seems to me like you're saying you need to conceptualise an absence of clouds to observe a clear sky.
You need to conceptualise an absence of clouds to know that you are observing a clear sky.
>This is what I dislike about eastern philosophical traditions, even if they are right in many ways. Answering the question already implies talking and conceptualising.
I think that's just intellectual honesty. Wanting to answer the unanswerable at all costs, even that of correctness, just leads to delusion and a distorted worldview. I think that in a lot of cases the only good answer is identifying the flaws in the question.
>You need to conceptualise an absence of clouds to know that you are observing a clear sky.
Sure, but 'a clear sky' is itself conceptual and 'knowing' is conceptual. You can observe a clear sky without forming ideas about what clarity is, why a sky is, what the potential non-clarity of a sky constitutes.
You can just look at what we conventionally call a clear sky without doing those things and just observe without running a constant narrative. If that narrative becomes quiet then there is just observation without differentiation.
When I've had these type of experiences there was no sense of 'now I am not conceptualising', because of course that would be a conceptualisation, but I realise in retrospect that there was no conceptualising at that moment.
I think nonduality is just a perspective.
Is this wrong?
That's just your perspective.
AN AUTHENTIC SPIRITUAL DOCTRINE HAS NO RITES, NO PRIESTS, NO PROSELYTIZERS, NO SCRIPTURES, NO FORM, NO NAME.
It's only a perspective that it's his perspective
So it would be just another's perspective that nonduality isn't just a perspective?
What's your point?
It's perspectives all the way down.
...
Is there free will according to nonduality?
you need to ask yourself what you're doing with your own will instead of shitting around like a dunce
There is no consensus among nondualists on the topic of free will. Some are compatibilists, others are determinists, others still libertarian, there are more positions to take.
I would say that the more nondualist thing is to reject the distinction free will/no free will, like other distinctions, in this case it means to take a pragmatist position: the issue makes no difference.
Up to this point, you're all clueless, and looking at it through the retarded Western lense. OP, since you posted the Aum, you need to understand: without a spiritual backbone, all philosophy, unless it directs to the truth, is a waste of time.
Non-duality means that your Soul/Coinciousness is no different than the Supreme Soul/Coinciousness, and that all existence emanates and is no different from it. That's it.
Free will is a concept that relies on the notion that the self is fundamentally separate from the world. If there is no separation between the self and the world, there is no separate self to be free from or subjected to causality.
nonderpality
neti neti
They all disagree