What is nonduality?

[Jonas Long]

3 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

Your definition of nonduality isn't it either.  You're putting that definition in a hierarchy over mine.  That's not quite right either.  See Phil and my discussion above.  It's fine to have a definition but any definition isn't it too.  It's a paradox -- on the one hand no definition captures it, and on the other hand we should work with different ways to talk about nonduality.

I didn't define it.  

[Joseph Maynor]

15 minutes ago, Jonas Long said:

I didn't define it.  

 

You said this: Nonduality isn't something you work for and achieve.  It's how it already is.

All of us who talk about nonduality have a different version of the Tao Te Ching that we wrote that comes after that first line that it can't be named and that's fine.  Mandy does, Phil does, I do, you do, and probably all those stories are slightly different, and that's fine.  But that doesn't touch the Eternal Tao.

This is why to call the Tao God is also problematic.  That's a naming!  This issue is so paradoxical because we both can't define nonduality and of course we can too!  It's tricky.  And I respect other people's stories for how they define nonduality too as simply their teaching, their vehicle to lead themselves and others to it.

There's also Indian Philosophy stories of nonduality and Chinese stories of nonduality.  Ex., there's a version of nonduality story in Advaita Vedanta.  "Not two" is a kind of pointer to nonduality.  I have more of an expansive theory of nonduality than that one duality being explored.  I'm  more like Derrida and Jung where I examine every duality not just the single duality between the self vs./and the other.  This is where teachers can disagree but all still be honoring nonduality in their own unique ways.

Edited March 28, 2023 by Joseph Maynor

[Jonas Long]

Just now, Joseph Maynor said:

 

You said this: Nonduality isn't something you work for and achieve.  It's how it already is

Yeah...that's not really a definition.. imo 

[Phil]

50 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

I actually agree with this.  We all have different ways to talk about nonduality but none of that is it. 

I don't think it's useful to say nonduality doesn't mean anything because that is just more talk.  It's not that either.  I think a better way to say it would be that whatever meaning is attributed to the word doesn't capture it.  Instead of saying it's meaningless a better way to say it imo is to wave your hand or something like a Zen Master would do.  Even saying "Mu" is not quite right.

I think it's useful to talk about nonduality personally.  To talk about it is better than to not talk about it because at least you can discuss some pointers.  

The Tao that can be named is not the Eternal Tao.  But that doesn't mean that we shouldn't talk about the Tao -- That's what the Tao Te Ching does.  Notice that after they say it can't be named they talk about it -- that work is about talking about the Tao.  It's a paradox.  We know it can't be talked about and we also know it much be talked about.

No one: (Waves hand)

[Jonas Long]

29 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

 

You said this: Nonduality isn't something you work for and achieve.  It's how it already is.

All of us who talk about nonduality have a different version of the Tao Te Ching that we wrote that comes after that first line that it can't be named and that's fine.  Mandy does, Phil does, I do, you do, and probably all those stories are slightly different, and that's fine.  But that doesn't touch the Eternal Tao.

This is why to call the Tao God is also problematic.  That's a naming!  This issue is so paradoxical because we both can't define nonduality and of course we can too!  It's tricky.  And I respect other people's stories for how they define nonduality too as simply their teaching, their vehicle to lead themselves and others to it.
 

for one thing, i've never heard anyone call the tao god.  

 

"There's also Indian Philosophy stories of nonduality and Chinese stories of nonduality.  Ex., there's a version of nonduality story in Advaita Vedanta.  "Not two" is a kind of pointer to nonduality.  I have more of an expansive theory of nonduality than that one duality being explored.  I'm  more like Derrida and Jung where I examine every duality not just the single duality between the self vs./and the other.  This is where teachers can disagree but all still be honoring nonduality in their own unique ways."

 

this is a wild assumption that all us "less expansive" people think of it as the collapsing of one example of duality... i don't know why you think that.  it's the preexisting condition of everything.... it automatically applies to every apparent duality.

[Joseph Maynor]

22 minutes ago, Phil said:

No one: (Waves hand)

Make sure that hand wave has no meaning attributable to it too.  That's why winning koans is complicated but remarkably easy too.  A throat clearing might work too as long as it's not dismissive.  I like the chop wood carry water famous response.  It's a demonstration of awareness of the issue between language and nonduality.  Can you imagine a Zen Master listening to Leo Gura go on and on how he's God or Alien Consciousness?  That dude would be sent out indefinitely to paint the fence.

Edited March 28, 2023 by Joseph Maynor

[Phil]

 

[Joseph Maynor]

19 minutes ago, Phil said:

 

The Beatles are magic.  Someone said that to me one time, and I was like I can't deny that.  It's true!

Edited March 29, 2023 by Joseph Maynor

[Joseph Maynor]

39 minutes ago, Jonas Long said:

for one thing, i've never heard anyone call the tao god.  

 

"There's also Indian Philosophy stories of nonduality and Chinese stories of nonduality.  Ex., there's a version of nonduality story in Advaita Vedanta.  "Not two" is a kind of pointer to nonduality.  I have more of an expansive theory of nonduality than that one duality being explored.  I'm  more like Derrida and Jung where I examine every duality not just the single duality between the self vs./and the other.  This is where teachers can disagree but all still be honoring nonduality in their own unique ways."

 

this is a wild assumption that all us "less expansive" people think of it as the collapsing of one example of duality... i don't know why you think that.  it's the preexisting condition of everything.... it automatically applies to every apparent duality.

Make a video on nonduality and give us the pleasure of watching it here.

[Jonas Long]

4 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

Make a video on nonduality and give us the pleasure of watching it here.

Maybe some day.  I haven't felt like making talking videos lately. 

[Jonas Long]

@Joseph Maynor

 

This is my real life teacher, he has a great series of nondual guided meditations. 

[Jonas Long]

32 minutes ago, DMT Elf said:

Related to the point I was trying to make in the other thread.. I see two main traps within this work that seem to oppose each other. The first is to deny any form of understanding, deny theory, deny the intellect, claim that nothing needs to be understood at all, and call it a day. This leads to a place of stagnation where people become painfully unaware of their own biases and self-deceptions. When you try to deny the importance of understanding, what you end up with is bad understanding. The second is to overemphasize theory without bothering to do a first principals investigation. This is the same as constructing your frameworks of understanding upon a foundation of unchallenged beliefs and wrong assumptions. This leads to endless mental masturbation around detached belief systems which probably aren’t even that unique. What’s noteworthy is that neither side is completely wrong in their approach, but each is limited in their own way. And each could stand to learn something from the other. Taking one of these paths while ignoring the partial validity of the other is like trying to be a scientist who denies the importance of philosophy. Ignoring philosophy won’t make you a better scientist, it’ll just make you a bad philosopher.

It's like with yoga there's the path of jnana(knowledge) bhakti(devotion) and karma(middle way).  In western magick it's a zigzag path that crosses all of them at different points. 

[Mandy]

You already have the guidance of feeling, so the nice thing is that you don't need to worry about balance, or which side, which path is superior when you have real time guidance. There aren't really different people on different paths anyway. 

[Phil]

8 hours ago, DMT Elf said:

Related to the point I was trying to make in the other thread.. I see two main traps within this work that seem to oppose each other. The first is to deny any form of understanding, deny theory, deny the intellect, claim that nothing needs to be understood at all, and call it a day. This leads to a place of stagnation where people become painfully unaware of their own biases and self-deceptions. When you try to deny the importance of understanding, what you end up with is bad understanding. The second is to overemphasize theory without bothering to do a first principals investigation. This is the same as constructing your frameworks of understanding upon a foundation of unchallenged beliefs and wrong assumptions. This leads to endless mental masturbation around detached belief systems which probably aren’t even that unique. What’s noteworthy is that neither side is completely wrong in their approach, but each is limited in their own way. And each could stand to learn something from the other. Taking one of these paths while ignoring the partial validity of the other is like trying to be a scientist who denies the importance of philosophy. Ignoring philosophy won’t make you a better scientist, it’ll just make you a bad philosopher.

Thought & perception are an appearance. The “understander” & “understanding” is an illusion of believing thoughts you’re appearing as. Wether you have no understanding, deny understanding, or the highest most complete understanding anyone has ever had - you’re asleep through the otherwise transparent lens of the separate self.  Can you even imagine happiness & love walking around in it’s own creation without thoughts or understanding? Sheer synchronicity. Absolute ‘childlike’ joy & freedom.  You can’t. Blaspheming fools. 

[Jonas Long]

4 hours ago, Mandy said:

You already have the guidance of feeling, so the nice thing is that you don't need to worry about balance, or which side, which path is superior when you have real time guidance. There aren't really different people on different paths anyway. 

It's true, all paths are on the tree of life which is a whole fractal, a pictoral map or glyph that is a representation, each path is dependent on all paths, like mirror images of each other, and the whole thing is a mirror image of ourselves. 

[Phil]

@DMT Elf

No. Good?

[Jonas Long]

10 minutes ago, Phil said:

@DMT Elf

No. Good?

Across the universe?  It's good if you hate the Beatles 

[Phil]

@Jonas Long

I guess I’ll pass on that one then. 

[Jonas Long]

13 minutes ago, DMT Elf said:

Yes, it's one of my favorite movies. There's this part where they're all taking a bunch of acid on this colorfully painted hippie bus while riding around through the country, and they come to this zen looking temple thing. And they're looking for a guy there that one of the guys on the bus compares himself to in a really funny way.

'Headquarters of the League of Spiritual Deliverance. The home of Dr. Geary. Another outlaw like myself. We're navigators. We're aviators. We're... ...eating taters. Masturbating alligators. Bombardiers, we got no fears, won't shed no tears. We're pushing the frontiers... ...of transcendental perception.'

 

I was watching it again recently, and the line about pushing the frontiers of transcendental perception totally blew my mind. I was like, 'damn, I totally understand what that means'. And I realized that all of spirituality is about transcendental perception. And I was like, "WOAH".

 

It's like this. Here's a message of spiritual deliverance from me to you...

Hate to mess with your groove New York, but we're about two years ahead of you on the coast. We already graduated from whats been going on to where it's going.

It's a lot of expatiation, but don't worry about it, kids, OK? Just tune in, turn off, drop out, drop in, switch off, switch on, and explode!

 

Check it out, but don't watch it sober. That really would be blasphemy.

 

Why do you say this?

I haven't seen the movie, though the way you describe it doesn't make me want to.  I've heard some of the soundtrack though, and it is where Beatles songs went to die. 

[Phil]

@DMT Elf

No idea what you’re saying there with the message of spiritual deliverance but maybe I’ll give that movie a go.