How does Brahman bring change if he is unchanging ?
Brahman grounds the temporal realm in which both mental and bodily change occurs. The change has no beginning, nor end. — Sirius
How can you even comprehend the meaning of "change" without a before and after, future and past? Which implies dualism. — Metaphysician Undercover
So monism? Is non-dualism supposed to be a translation of advaita? — Lionino
What is non-dualism ?
Non-dualism represents the absence of a distinction that seperates reality into subject-object, appearance-thing in itself, becoming-being, nothingness-somethingness, necessity-contingency etc. In short, binary distinctions created by our langauges and thoughts dissappear.
Who are we from the non-dual perspective ?
Brahman, who is pure consciousness. — Sirius
You might find this a useful resource: Nonduality, David Loy, a .pdf copy of his book by that name, based on his PhD. You can find more about him on davidloy.org.(FYI, this correlates with parts of something I'm currently working on.) — javra
You might find this a useful resource: Nonduality, David Loy, a .pdf copy of his book by that name, based on his PhD. — Wayfarer
The following types of nonduality are discussed here: the negation of dualistic thinking, the nonplurality of the world, and the non-difference of subject and object. In subsequent chapters, our attention focuses primarily on the last of these three, although there will be occasion to consider two other nondualities which are also closely related: first, what has been called the identity of phenomenon and Absolute, of the Mahayana equation of samsara and nirvana, which can also be expressed as “the nonduality of duality and nonduality”; […] — David Loy
what I was fishing for here is any rational criticism of the presented necessity that non-dualism, this regarding the world as it’s known, entails a duality between a) a real (or ultimately real) and non-dual fundamental essence and b) a contingent fundamental essence of phenomena (etc.) which brings about duality in the world and which is ultimately illusory in full. — javra
For Hadot...the means for the philosophical student to achieve the “complete reversal of our usual ways of looking at things” epitomized by the Sage were a series of spiritual exercises. These exercises encompassed all of those practices still associated with philosophical teaching and study: reading, listening, dialogue, inquiry, and research. However, they also included practices deliberately aimed at addressing the student’s larger way of life, and demanding daily or continuous repetition: practices of attention (prosoche), meditations (meletai), memorizations of dogmata, self-mastery (enkrateia), the therapy of the passions, the remembrance of good things, the accomplishment of duties, and the cultivation of indifference towards indifferent things. Hadot acknowledges his use of the term “spiritual exercises” may create anxieties, by associating philosophical practices more closely with religious devotion than typically done. Hadot’s use of the adjective “spiritual” (or sometimes “existential”) indeed aims to capture how these practices, like devotional practices in the religious traditions, are aimed at generating and reactivating a constant way of living and perceiving in prokopta (=preceptors, students), despite the distractions, temptations, and difficulties of life. — IEP
Non-dualism represents the absence of a distinction that seperates reality into subject-object, appearance-thing in itself, becoming-being, nothingness-somethingness, necessity-contingency etc. In short, binary distinctions created by our langauges and thoughts dissappear. — Sirius
In the Madhyamaka of Nāgārjuna, there is 'the doctrine of two truths', the domain of conventional reality, Saṃvṛtisatya, in which all sentient beings are situated, but then the domain of ultimate reality, Paramārthasatya which is the higher truth perceived by the Buddhas. But part of this doctrine is that (1) these are not ultimately two — Wayfarer
upon its obtainment the conventional truth of phenomena (such as of phenomena-dependent pains and pleasures together the our apprehension of selfhood) will also persist in this state of ultimate being - for the two truths were roughly stated to be one and the same. Yet, as expressed, I can currently only presume this to be wrong, for it is contrary to what Nirvana without remainder is described to be — javra
I agree, and it's actually not hard really to understand that languages and specifically the emotion of fear cause a separation to happen. Fear is the limiting or orderly force in the universe. In being afraid that one is not a part of all, one is instantly and eternally separated from all until that fear is balanced. That is in some ways the purpose of fear, to offer this delusion of separation that must be overcome. Thus, the overcoming of that fear is wisdom, good, the right path.What is non-dualism ?
Non-dualism represents the absence of a distinction that seperates reality into subject-object, appearance-thing in itself, becoming-being, nothingness-somethingness, necessity-contingency etc. In short, binary distinctions created by our langauges and thoughts dissappear. — Sirius
No more or less than we ever were from any perspective. Perspective is not relevant to truth. Nothing can change truth. Perspective is only error.Who are we from the non-dual perspective ? — Sirius
There is no purpose to offering any label to Truth, ALL, or Love, especially a name. In offering a name to something you are participating in that fear separation game, an immoral mistake. If you belong, then you are Brahman also, so saying 'Brahman' is not precisely helpful.Brahman, who is pure consciousness. — Sirius
That was kind of what I just did my best to explain.What is the way to knowing Brahman ? — Sirius
This is incorrect and dangerously so.Through negation. The ascetic with the perfect contentment looks past all the veils that hide Brahman from the ignorant and sensuous people who are trapped in their mistaken apprehension. The veils are all the material and subtle (astral) bodies. Negate them to find Brahman, to find your true self. — Sirius
That is actually simple to begin to understand. We are not perfect. That realization and admission comes easily. So, in accepting this delusion, we limit ourselves and get comfortable amid those limits.How can Brahman be ineffable and still be described as pure consciousness ? — Sirius
Yet and still we do sense it, non-duality. We sense oneness, perfection. The emotion that arises from that sense is desire itself. Desire is caused in us by the extant (current) existence of perfection. We are deluded in our efforts with desire, just like fear. We want only parts, and not all. That is immoral. It is how we make mistake after mistake. And to want something that is out of balance will unbalance all. Our moral duty to the universe is balance, and maximization; NOT negation.Pure consciousness isn't a description. You can't point to it in the world. It's a phenomenal non-dual experience. In a sense, this experience is ineffable. — Sirius
You can. Who told you that you cannot?Why can't l change the world if l am Brahman ? — Sirius
What 'doesn't happen' is nonsensical. What happens is illusory enough! It is not REALLY illusory, but we are incapable of apprehending things objectively. If we are capable, then it is the least likely thing in the universe, to choose even a single moment of perfection. It is almost infinitely hard, giving rise to the very accurate statement that no one is perfect. Yet all, everything together, is perfect.If l am Brahman, then my will is Brahman's will. But my so called "will" related to what doesn't happen is illusory, like my mind and body. — Sirius
Perfection is a flux. That is what was mentioned earlier. Perfection ALLOWS FOR imperfection within it. And that greater set of possible 'happenings' is more perfect than just a bland perfection would be. In fact, it's perfect (ha ha).How does Brahman bring change if he is unchanging ? — Sirius
Yes, as in circular. Meaning proceeds endlessly from meaning. But there is no need for the term or name Brahman, nor 'grounding the temporal realm'. The provenance of free will is the only thing in existence.Brahman grounds the temporal realm in which both mental and bodily change occurs. The change has no beginning, nor end. — Sirius
All choices/beliefs are illusory for any scope that is not all. Only all contains the conclusion, the only conclusion, love. Every sub-scope is illusion. Identity, time, separation; all these terms are delusional. We fight very hard to be separate from all against our own happiness.What is the nature of an illusion ? — Sirius
No, not just apprehension (fear). Desire and anger can also be delusional. No emotion can escape interaction with the other two. If one wants what is not perfect, that is delusional, an illusion. If one believes that effort can be less than perfect, laziness, and be moral, that is delusional. So, it is not only apprehension that is the source or causal to illusion/delusion.An illusion is something seeming or appearing as other than what it is. All illusions are caused by mistaken apprehension. — Sirius
One is tempted to speak for Brahman and say that perfection contains all illusions and is confused by none of them.Does the world exist as an illusion for Brahman ? — Sirius
AgreedBrahman experiences the content of illusion, without mistaking the illusion to be the reality. Just like a knowledgeable person can see a mirage, without believing in its actual existence. He never loses his identity as pure consciousness. — Sirius
There is only one thing, the thing, perfection. It is somehow the goal of all choice, perhaps. It could be that only experience itself, simply being, suffering the path to perfection, is the only end that justifies all means. But it is fun and interesting to offer that there is a higher dimension still, and that perfecting the one of which we have awareness is required to move on to it.What exists other than all that is illusory ? — Sirius
Clearly, it is possible to use consciousness, or love, as perfection. It is then also Brahman or 'God' and Truth as well. All the terms are synonymous.Consciousness — Sirius
There is nothing but consciousness. All physical reality is just emotions interacting. And only three emotions, fear, anger, and desire. I can explain much further, but that is a sufficient starting point.How can consciousness ground the mental and physical world and how can an illusion be grounded by what is real ? — Sirius
Although it is wise to worry about the perfection of any assertion, any useful analogy or aphorism will hold in all cases, or it is not truth at all but only a state. States change, truth does not.The real can actually ground an illusion. Just as the real moving wings of a fan show an illusory circle. This is an analogy, so it doesn't explain the "how" in the case of Brahman-Maya, nor is it wise to stretch an analogy beyond its limit. — Sirius
We must suffer to earn wisdom. Suffering is the only path to wisdom. Think of it as learning to shoulder the right to be Brahman. You are Brahman but you should be a good one. Get busy. The more moral a choice is, the harder it is.If l am Brahman and Brahman knows how consciousness grounds the illusion, then why don't we know how consciousness grounds the illusion ? — Sirius
There is no need to speak of a 'realm of illusions'. That is only us, believing less than perfection, being less than perfection, as allowed, within perfection. But the aim should be, and moral aims are, towards perfection.Brahman (I) knows the way the illusion is grounded without a "how" or "why". In other words, it's a brute fact, requiring no further explanations. But nevertheless, it's a brute fact in the realm of illusions. — Sirius
But many Western enthusiasts for what they imagine to be Zen have never actually come into contact with this branch of the Buddhist Tradition as it still exists and functions in the Far East. ....Those few who took the trouble to visit Japan and begin the practice of Zen under a recognized Zen master or who joined the monastic Order soon discovered that it was a very different matter from what the popularizing literature had led them to believe. They found that in the traditional Zen monastery zazen is never divorced from the daily routine of accessory disciplines. To attenuate and finally dissolve the illusion of the individual ego, it is always supplemented by manual work to clean the temple, maintain the garden, and grow food in the grounds; by strenuous study with attendance at discourses on the sutras and commentaries; and by periodical interviews with the roshi, to test spiritual progress. Acolytes are expected to develop indifference to the discomforts of heat and cold on a most frugal vegetarian diet and to abstain from self-indulgence in sleep and sex, intoxicating drinks and addictive drugs. Altogether Zen demands an ability to participate in a communal life as regimented and lacking in privacy as the army.
whether Nirvāṇa is something that can really be obtained is an open question. — Wayfarer
Nirvana is the realization of impermanence, no absolutes, and emptiness through and through. — PoeticUniverse
Yes, (i.e.) the unbounded void of uncountable, endlessly swirling atoms ... natura naturans.In other words, ultimate reality is not an alternative to conventional reality; it is the insight into the emptiness (śūnyatā) of inherent existence in all phenomena. — Wayfarer
Well, the alternative is 'to live carelessly', no?My somewhat crude question is, why should we care? — Tom Storm
:sparkle: :eyes: :sweat: :lol: :rofl:Is this frame[work] really just for people who enjoy 'wanking about oneness'
Perhaps these reflections are used by some as a prophylactic against superstition, magical thinking, ego-fantasy, zerosum games, etc.... or does it have a tangible use in daily living?
Ontological immanence¹.What is non-dualism? — Sirius
Misunderstanding, or ignorance-denial, of the fundamental inseparability of everything from nature is "the nature of illusions" (i.e. superstitions) such as "non-contingent facts", "transcendent values", "supernatural entities", etc.What is the nature of an illusion?
:roll:It's a fact. — Wayfarer
I couldn't find anything of that sort in the interview... "observer" does not come up in the transcript.listened to Hillary Lawson interview Sabine Hossenfelder yesterday, and she says her main research interest, aside from her very successful youtube channel, is somehow eliminating 'the observer problem'. — Wayfarer
15:23
So, in summary. A) That consciousness causes the collapse of the wave-function is a possible
Summary interpretation of the mathematics, but it’s as problematic as all other interpretations of quantum mechanics. B) One can formulate a collapse model based on this idea which is a testable modification of quantum mechanics. But in all honesty, I think if they test it, they’ll just rule it out. C) The idea that you can influence the collapse of the wave-function by thinking is pseudoscience. And D) none of that is what Penrose and Hamaroff are on about, which is another story entirely.
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.