Autism & Nonduality?

[Eternal]

Curious to hear your thoughts about autism? What is it? how does it occur? 

 

Non duality suggests that we already are one and aren't seperate & people who are autistic generally tend to understand things 'differently' to 'normal' people.. 

 

Trouble reading social cues & just different traits in general.. to someone who is not autistic. 

 

I don't much about it so interested to hear peoples thoughts on this subject? 

[Phil]

It’s a great, great inquiry. It’s entirely possible to see very clearly exactly what autism is, and why autism has arisen to the degree it has.

 

However, it’s not possible to see this clearly without first seeing nonduality clearly. To ‘see nonduality clearly’ simply means, to ‘see’ reality as is - without any beliefs, but it would suffice (inquiry wise) to albeit conceptually, see that nonduality means no second (with respect to autism). Put another way, ‘autism’ is an ism, a theory or belief, and amounts to a label, which believed, prevents seeing what the inquiry is about. What’s actually going on, which leads to the label. 

 

So first.. with respect to the inquiry… 

Nonduality does not mean “we already are one & aren’t separate…. and there are “people” who are “x, y or z”…. for whom there is “understanding” of “things”, and therein “normal people & abnormal people”… who have “trouble reading social cues” and “have different traits… to someone else… who is not autistic”. 

 

Nonduality (not, two), means there aren’t people, there isn’t understanding, and there isn’t finite / aren’t things. 

 

This could be taken many ways, but is crucial to seeing what autism is clearly. 

 

As always, questions & discussion are welcomed. 

 

[Enlightened Cat]

On 3/16/2024 at 8:08 AM, Phil said:

 

This could be taken many ways, but is crucial to seeing what autism is clearly. 

 

As always, questions & discussion are welcomed. 

You say that the label "autism" prevents inquiry. Is that because the label is a set of assumptions/characteristics unrelated to what is being inquired about? 

Isn't it useful to refer to "people", "understanding", etc., for the sake of language and communication? 
 

[Mandy]

I think the label is an attempt to bring understanding and love, but is missed in the labeling. I think it's an attempt to identify a problem in hopes of finding the solution, but is created in the labeling. 

 

The etymology of autism is self -ism, and Alzheimer's is named after a dude. 

 

 

[Phil]

8 hours ago, Enlightened Cat said:

You say that the label "autism" prevents inquiry.

Not prevents inquiry…  prevents seeing what the inquiry is about. What’s actually going on, which leads to the label. 

 

8 hours ago, Enlightened Cat said:

Is that because the label is a set of assumptions/characteristics unrelated to what is being inquired about? 

The inquiry is about Being, and the label seems to typically be ‘held’ as a thing an individual has or a description or characteristic of an individual. 

 

The colloquial “understanding” of autism is a neurodevelopmental disorder characterized by difficulties in social interaction and communication, as well as restricted and repetitive behaviors or interests.

 

“Understanding” is a secondary conceptualization of being (with autism being the first conceptualization), which in the same way is actually doubly preventative / obscuring of seeing the actuality of what the ism autism is really about, or, what’s actually happening. 

 

Colloquially the actuality of autism is obscured by the belief in separate individuals, and an objective (definable & understandable) reality. 

 

8 hours ago, Enlightened Cat said:

Isn't it useful to refer to "people", "understanding", etc., for the sake of language and communication? 

In some ways yes, in this regard no. 

[Enlightened Cat]

13 hours ago, Phil said:

The inquiry is about Being, and the label seems to typically be ‘held’ as a thing an individual has or a description or characteristic of an individual. 

 

The colloquial “understanding” of autism is a neurodevelopmental disorder characterized by difficulties in social interaction and communication, as well as restricted and repetitive behaviors or interests.

 

“Understanding” is a secondary conceptualization of being (with autism being the first conceptualization), which in the same way is actually doubly preventative / obscuring of seeing the actuality of what the ism autism is really about, or, what’s actually happening. 

So the label creates a "false" understanding, in the sense that the understanding is a conceptualization? 

 

13 hours ago, Phil said:

Colloquially the actuality of autism is obscured by the belief in separate individuals, and an objective (definable & understandable) reality. 

Which is to say, the phenomenon of "autism" can't be fundamentally understood through a conceptual or dualistic lens?

Edited March 21 by Enlightened Cat

[Phil]

7 hours ago, Enlightened Cat said:

So the label creates a "false" understanding, in the sense that the understanding is a conceptualization? 

Understanding is not an experience nor an object, neither in a materialist’s sense, nor in the ‘object of perception’, or, ‘object of consciousness’ sense, so understanding is neither false nor true, in the same way a unicorn is neither false nor true. Understanding and unicorns simply do not exist.

 

The belief in understanding and the belief in unicorns are, beliefs. The believing of thoughts. The belief in understanding is the belief “I am a separate finite self… which has an understanding or understands… this other separate finite thing or experience’, or the more delusional belief (believing of thoughts), “I am infinite being… and I have an understanding of myself… infinite being”. ‘More’ delusional as in the ultimate emotional suppression / denial of the infinitude of Self - the reality of Being. 

 

Being is being “the world” by appearing as a world-sphere. Being is seemingly born into the world Being is being, by being the lens-sphere. To “be born into a world” as it were, being must overlook its own infinitude & unconditionality, or that it is being the spheres. Infinitude = infinite = there is no other thing which could be known or understood by Being, and there is no separate finite individual or self, which could understand or know. This is not a problem, this is creation. Creator-Creating-Creation. Sheer beauty, simplicity, perfection. 

 

Being is presently ‘born into a world’ so deeply and thoroughly deluded, that Being essentially ‘joins in’ and purports to be individuals as “teachers of Being / consciousness”, sharing a Message of knowing & understanding - Being - which is entirely delusion / delusional. 

 

In direct experience, knowing and understanding are the thoughts, “knowing”, and “understanding”, which appear of the lens-sphere. Creation, or Being’s being, is actually that simple. World-sphere & lens-sphere. Thoughts appear of the lens-sphere, about the world sphere. Without self-conceptualization, manipulation & deception - creation is actually that simple. This simple, straightforward & self-evident. 

 

8 hours ago, Enlightened Cat said:

Which is to say, the phenomenon of "autism" can't be fundamentally understood through a conceptual or dualistic lens?

The word "autism" is derived from the Greek word "autos," meaning "self” and ism meaning essentially theory. So as it is said someone has autism, what’s being said is a theory, that I am a finite self which knows abut other finite selves, and there is an other finite separate self which has a theory, of a separate finite self.

 

If that feels like utter nonsense as a concept / label, it is because it is utter nonsense. It is the ‘ultimate’ aversion of feeling via conceptualizing & thought attachment. This is ‘how far’ the so called finite mind(s) (lens-sphere in actuality) has / have strayed from the beauty & simplicity of creation, of Truth, as Being. It is a complete ignore-ance of the ‘state of the world’ as it were, and the effect the state of the world-sphere has on the ‘evolution’ of the lens-sphere. (“New finite minds being born into the word”, if we must).

 

Delusion pervades existence as consciousness fixates on the misunderstanding of there being ‘finite forms’, therein fostering an illusion of separateness and limitation. This narrative fuels stress, tension, anxiety, panic attacks as well as harm, violence and war… overlooking ‘interconnectedness’ - infinite consciousness. Consequently, manifestations of mental, emotional & bodily distress & psychosomatic dis-ease are ‘written off’ as “labels upon of individuals”, and the response by & large is of arrogance, greed, vanity, manipulation and deception - to label, and profit… which perpetuates the suppression of emotional guidance and simultaneously essentially destroys the environment and quality of life if you will. 

[Enlightened Cat]

7 hours ago, Phil said:

Understanding is not an experience nor an object, neither in a materialist’s sense, nor in the ‘object of perception’, or, ‘object of consciousness’ sense, so understanding is neither false nor true, in the same way a unicorn is neither false nor true. Understanding and unicorns simply do not exist.

 

The belief in understanding and the belief in unicorns are, beliefs. The believing of thoughts. The belief in understanding is the belief “I am a separate finite self… which has an understanding or understands… this other separate finite thing or experience’, or the more delusional belief (believing of thoughts), “I am infinite being… and I have an understanding of myself… infinite being”. ‘More’ delusional as in the ultimate emotional suppression / denial of the infinitude of Self - the reality of Being. 

 

Being is being “the world” by appearing as a world-sphere. Being is seemingly born into the world Being is being, by being the lens-sphere. To “be born into a world” as it were, being must overlook its own infinitude & unconditionality, or that it is being the spheres. Infinitude = infinite = there is no other thing which could be known or understood by Being, and there is no separate finite individual or self, which could understand or know. This is not a problem, this is creation. Creator-Creating-Creation. Sheer beauty, simplicity, perfection. 

 

Being is presently ‘born into a world’ so deeply and thoroughly deluded, that Being essentially ‘joins in’ and purports to be individuals as “teachers of Being / consciousness”, sharing a Message of knowing & understanding - Being - which is entirely delusion / delusional. 

 

In direct experience, knowing and understanding are the thoughts, “knowing”, and “understanding”, which appear of the lens-sphere. Creation, or Being’s being, is actually that simple. World-sphere & lens-sphere. Thoughts appear of the lens-sphere, about the world sphere. Without self-conceptualization, manipulation & deception - creation is actually that simple. This simple, straightforward & self-evident. 

 

The word "autism" is derived from the Greek word "autos," meaning "self” and ism meaning essentially theory. So as it is said someone has autism, what’s being said is a theory, that I am a finite self which knows abut other finite selves, and there is an other finite separate self which has a theory, of a separate finite self.

 

If that feels like utter nonsense as a concept / label, it is because it is utter nonsense. It is the ‘ultimate’ aversion of feeling via conceptualizing & thought attachment. This is ‘how far’ the so called finite mind(s) (lens-sphere in actuality) has / have strayed from the beauty & simplicity of creation, of Truth, as Being. It is a complete ignore-ance of the ‘state of the world’ as it were, and the effect the state of the world-sphere has on the ‘evolution’ of the lens-sphere. (“New finite minds being born into the word”, if we must).

 

Delusion pervades existence as consciousness fixates on the misunderstanding of there being ‘finite forms’, therein fostering an illusion of separateness and limitation. This narrative fuels stress, tension, anxiety, panic attacks as well as harm, violence and war… overlooking ‘interconnectedness’ - infinite consciousness. Consequently, manifestations of mental, emotional & bodily distress & psychosomatic dis-ease are ‘written off’ as “labels upon of individuals”, and the response by & large is of arrogance, greed, vanity, manipulation and deception - to label, and profit… which perpetuates the suppression of emotional guidance and simultaneously essentially destroys the environment and quality of life if you will. 

Got it. Thank you for taking the time to elaborate.

If there is "knowing" or "understanding", then that knowing and understanding is always "of a thing" and thus it doesn't exist, like a unicorn. Applying "knowing" or "understanding" to a person or thing using the label "autism" then inherently separates that "being" from their inherent nature, because the tool of perception (understanding) is simply belief or imagination, like a unicorn. Is that about right?

[Phil]

@Enlightened Cat

If? 

 

A simpler way to express is the activities of the world-sphere are intimately entwined with the lens-sphere. 

 

Another way… if the trees of a forest were suppressed, would the suppression change new trees sprouting? 

 

How aligned is the typical environment socially speaking? Corporate America for example. 

 

This convo could go on for a year and insights would still be clicking. 

 

What if you had a fish bowel which starts of perfectly balanced and over time the fish’s food is replaced with chemicals, the air is replaced with toxins, and the water was becoming poisoned therein? And that’s just ‘how it is’. What might new fish be like as a product of that suppression (environment)? What if the fish behind these changes just labeled the new fish individually, as if the changes weren’t all-encompassing, given there aren’t any fish?

[Enlightened Cat]

3 hours ago, Phil said:

@Enlightened Cat

If? 

I mean, if there is a belief in an understanding of a thing, then there is just belief, nothing else. 

Did you mean that the statement after "if" could not truly be the case?

Edited March 22 by Enlightened Cat

[Phil]

6 hours ago, Enlightened Cat said:

If there is "knowing" or "understanding", then that knowing and understanding is always "of a thing" and thus it doesn't exist, like a unicorn. Applying "knowing" or "understanding" to a person or thing using the label "autism" then inherently separates that "being" from their inherent nature, because the tool of perception (understanding) is simply belief or imagination, like a unicorn. Is that about right?

By perception I mean seeing, hearing etc. By understanding I mean the thought, understanding. In the sense there’s experience of misunderstanding but not of understanding. Like impatience and patience or blame and innocence. Appearance / experience and that which is appearing / aware. 

 

Direct experience wise there aren’t two perceptions or two points of view - labels don’t separate anything or anyone from their true nature. There might be an experience of the label ‘their’, but no actual experience of the true nature, or separation from. 

 

2 hours ago, Enlightened Cat said:

I mean, if there is a belief in an understanding of a thing, then there is just belief, nothing else.  Did you mean that the statement after "if" could not truly be the case?

The word understanding is both a set up and a punchline in one in the exact same way. Like making choices & decisions. As there is believed to be understanding the inevitability of understanding being on behalf of a self of thoughts is like the build up  & pause before the punchline.  

 

Do these distinctions click as it relates to ‘autism’, and the desire not to adhere to social norms which are facades based on ignorance? 

 

[Enlightened Cat]

8 hours ago, Phil said:

In the sense there’s experience of misunderstanding but not of understanding.

Meaning, if there is a sense of "understanding", that is still a misunderstanding, because it creates a person who either understands or misunderstands, when they are both actually the same paradigm; of a person who can be affected by understanding or misunderstanding?

 

8 hours ago, Phil said:

Like impatience and patience or blame and innocence.

Right, because these would denote a person who is always either innocent/blamed, or patient/impatient, thus still keeping them inside of that paradigm of someone who can be those things?
 

8 hours ago, Phil said:

Do these distinctions click as it relates to ‘autism’, and the desire not to adhere to social norms which are facades based on ignorance? 

I can see how there is not a person who does not desire to adhere to social norms. Because that seems to put that person in a position of "choosing", like "I desire to not like social situations" or something like that.

I think more practically how it plays out is that they are in a situation which creates certain desires and beliefs. Perhaps they act out an emotion which causes a public disturbance. This is falsely understood as "I am a person who is bad socially", which veils what perpetuated the emotion in the first place. 

Edited March 22 by Enlightened Cat

[Enlightened Cat]

20 hours ago, Phil said:

What if you had a fish bowel which starts of perfectly balanced and over time the fish’s food is replaced with chemicals, the air is replaced with toxins, and the water was becoming poisoned therein? And that’s just ‘how it is’. What might new fish be like as a product of that suppression (environment)? What if the fish behind these changes just labeled the new fish individually, as if the changes weren’t all-encompassing, given there aren’t any fish?

I really like this.

Is this to say that the product of an environment is being seen or "understood" as an individual entity, such as with the label of autism? The environment causes certain reactions and those reactions are "understood" as a person/fish who has "autism" or some such thing?

[Phil]

52 minutes ago, Enlightened Cat said:

Meaning, if there is a sense of "understanding", that is still a misunderstanding, because it creates a person who either understands or misunderstands, when they are both actually the same paradigm; of a person who can be affected by understanding or misunderstanding?

There isn’t really a ‘sense of’ understanding, there are self referential thoughts like ‘I understand’, ‘my understanding’, or in extreme suppressive egocentrism  ‘levels of understanding’. ‘I understand’ is the same as ‘I’m worried’. Misunderstanding is experiential and so is worry, but understanding isn’t experienced like a separate self which is worried isn’t experienced. 

 

55 minutes ago, Enlightened Cat said:

Right, because these would denote a person who is always either innocent/blamed, or patient/impatient, thus still keeping them inside of that paradigm of someone who can be those things?

Impatience is experienced, as an emotion, as how a thought or interpretation feels, as guidance for thoughts. Patience is only assumed to be an experienced. Patience isn’t experienced because you’re eternal. Understanding isn’t experienced because there’s not actually anything to know or understand. Impatience & misunderstanding are experienced because you’re appearing is this. 

 

59 minutes ago, Enlightened Cat said:

I can see how there is not a person who does not desire to adhere to social norms. Because that seems to put that person in a position of "choosing", like "I desire to not like social situations" or something like that.

I think more practically how it plays out is that they are in a situation which creates certain desires and beliefs. Perhaps they act out an emotion which causes a public disturbance. This is falsely understood as "I am a person who is bad socially", which veils what perpetuated the emotion in the first place

No one desires to have to act or be a certain way that they naturally aren’t to fit into social norms founded upon, acting and being ways which are unnatural. One which is ‘wired’ in such a way that they don’t experience in that way could be listened to by everyone who does, rather than labelled as having something wrong with them, or some deficit of some kind. 

[Phil]

58 minutes ago, Enlightened Cat said:

I really like this.

Is this to say that the product of an environment is being seen or "understood" as an individual entity, such as with the label of autism? The environment causes certain reactions and those reactions are "understood" as a person/fish who has "autism" or some such thing?

Kinda yeah. The lens-sphere isn’t separate of the world-sphere. The lens-sphere ‘evolves’ just as does the world-sphere. 

[Enlightened Cat]

23 minutes ago, Phil said:

There isn’t really a ‘sense of’ understanding, there are self referential thoughts like ‘I understand’, ‘my understanding’, or in extreme suppressive egocentrism  ‘levels of understanding’. ‘I understand’ is the same as ‘I’m worried’. Misunderstanding is experiential and so is worry, but understanding isn’t experienced like a separate self which is worried isn’t experienced. 

 

Impatience is experienced, as an emotion, as how a thought or interpretation feels, as guidance for thoughts. Patience is only assumed to be an experienced. Patience isn’t experienced because you’re eternal. Understanding isn’t experienced because there’s not actually anything to know or understand. Impatience & misunderstanding are experienced because you’re appearing is this. 

 

No one desires to have to act or be a certain way that they naturally aren’t to fit into social norms founded upon, acting and being ways which are unnatural. One which is ‘wired’ in such a way that they don’t experience in that way could be listened to by everyone who does, rather than labelled as having something wrong with them, or some deficit of some kind. 

 

22 minutes ago, Phil said:

Kinda yeah. The lens-sphere isn’t separate of the world-sphere. The lens-sphere ‘evolves’ just as does the world-sphere. 

That all makes sense to me. 

I definitely hold this sentiment that many areas around the human condition are in the "dark age" so to speak, like psychology, health, education, etc. 

It seems to be this visceral psychosomatic entanglement stemming from our inability to understand or perceive what we are. And I guess it percolates to "everything", as you said the lens-sphere isn't separate of the world-sphere. And it seems like the tendency of the mind to understand "things" and split the environment into parts of itself neglects the psychosomatic nature of it all.

When I look at autism I personally don't see it as a deficit at all. It is just a way of processing that is maladaptive with an environment it seems. Then, like how I mentioned before, the maladaptive effects of the environment are categorized into this clinical entity or DSM called "autism." And then they become a "person who desires to go against the environment." It more so seems that the autistic way of being causes many misunderstandings which percolate into the environment, for both the autistic individual and even the psychologist diagnosing it. The misunderstandings are not really inherent to the autism, but the DSM would see it that way by calling the misunderstanding a "deficit which comes with autism." This turns the "problem/misunderstanding" into a clean and simple clinical entity called "autism", and then it tries to shape that clinical entity into something which is not autistic or less autistic to "fix the problem." The problem has now been transformed into a clinical entity. I guess this would be like the "suppression" which you mentioned earlier.
 

[Phil]

@Enlightened Cat

But maladaptive means… not providing adequate or appropriate adjustment to the environment or situation. What if it’s exactly the opposite?

[ThePoint]

16 hours ago, Enlightened Cat said:

definitely hold this sentiment that many areas around the human condition are in the "dark age" so to speak, like psychology, health, education, etc. 

Many? So to speak? It's literally the dark age, in its every aspect.

 

16 hours ago, Enlightened Cat said:

When I look at autism I personally don't see it as a deficit at all. It is just a way of processing that is maladaptive with an environment it seems. Then, like how I mentioned before, the maladaptive effects of the environment are categorized into this clinical entity or DSM called "autism." And then they become a "person who desires to go against the environment."

I've worked with some 'autistic' children even though I prefer not to work with non-adults. These are generally some of the brightest souls I've yet encountered, given from society not more and not less than a massive dose of self doubt instilled from every direction. And as such conditioned to adapt this limitation onto themselves.

Keep in mind that not *that* long ago we were living in tribal societies,  having only people we know and trust around us. Living in and with nature. Sleeping within rhythms dictated by the Moon and the Sun. Which were also dictating the amount of light received by eyes. Where shouts or loud sounds usually meant real danger.

Generally most things that so called autistic people struggle with. Now compare that to a modern city.

Given they manage to overcome struggles given to then by societal norms and they'll give themselves voice, they'll likely play a nice role in the evolution.

 

Keep in mind that being a 'healthy and highly functional' member of a highly dysfunctional society is not a measure of health nor wit. 

 

 

[WhiteOwl]

I work with adults with autism and putting them in a group together makes little sense to me. They "function" quite differently each one of them. Some seem to percieve the world very basic like a child maybe, and some a lot more complex seeing patterns and remembering things i don't at least.

[Enlightened Cat]

4 hours ago, Phil said:

@Enlightened Cat

But maladaptive means… not providing adequate or appropriate adjustment to the environment or situation. What if it’s exactly the opposite?

Meaning, the environment or situation is not adequate or appropriate? I guess that's a better way to describe it yeah.