Nonduality

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?