Hi I've got a basic question about the non-dualist philosophy
According to non-dualist philosophy, could it be said that nothing is any better than anything else?
For example, could it be said (according to the non-dualist philosophy) that an advanced manifestation technique is no more likely to succeed than a simple technique like creative visualization?
I hope you can clarify this for me, as I greatly enjoyed Russell Targ's book on this subject but am not sure if I have got the wrong end of the stick.
Thanks from
007
Quote from: 007 on April 28, 2008, 17:11:09
According to non-dualist philosophy, could it be said that nothing is any better than anything else?
Things are only "better" if you see them as such, ie it is one way of looking at things: the "better" or "worse" paradigm.
QuoteFor example, could it be said (according to the non-dualist philosophy) that an advanced manifestation technique is no more likely to succeed than a simple technique like creative visualization?
The complicated one would be more likely to fail just
because it is more complicated, if you adhere to the Taoist philosophy, for example. But the more complicated technique may allow richer self-expression when you master it!
Taoism stresses transcending dualism more than any other philosophy I am aware of. The ancient text 'Tao te Ching' pertains largely to transcending dualism.
Consider the following chapter from the Tao te Ching:
QuoteWhen people see some things as beautiful,
other things become ugly.
When people see some things as good,
other things become bad.
Being and non-being create each other.
Difficult and easy support each other.
Long and short define each other.
High and low depend on each other.
Before and after follow each other.
Therefore the Master
acts without doing anything
and teaches without saying anything.
Things arise and she lets them come;
things disappear and she lets them go.
She has but doesn't possess,
acts but doesn't expect.
When her work is done, she forgets it.
That is why it lasts forever.
http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/core9/phalsall/texts/taote-v3.html
Quote from: 007 on April 28, 2008, 17:11:09
Hi I've got a basic question about the non-dualist philosophy
According to non-dualist philosophy, could it be said that nothing is any better than anything else?
For example, could it be said (according to the non-dualist philosophy) that an advanced manifestation technique is no more likely to succeed than a simple technique like creative visualization?
I hope you can clarify this for me, as I greatly enjoyed Russell Targ's book on this subject but am not sure if I have got the wrong end of the stick.
Thanks from
007
The better or worse consideration is only a human judgment and nothing more since we are perceiving from our human points of perception.
In reality, our perceptions as humans have no place in the bigger pictures, unless we experience those bigger pictures and get a clearer perception of what is and what therefore isn't.
Personally, I feel that the simpler we can make things for ourselves then the 'easier' it can become with practice to perceive more clearly. And this applies to manifestation, which is a tricky thing since we humans tend to want, desire and imagine particular outcomes and timeframes for our creations. And of course, the universe/god/awareness will do what it will do no matter what we think about it.
If you had been contemplating this non-dualism do you think that could affect your success with dowsing - as with pendulum dowsing you would hope to get a yes/no answer
Also is it not the case that according to this type of philosophy, even the idea of non-dualism is neither true nor not true etc etc?
regards
007
Non-duality is only half the picture - the "illusion" of reality is the other half. Another way of saying this is that the manifest and unmanifest create each other, and the only thing beyond both is the observer. This is the core of non-duality teachings. Duality and non-duality are different "levels" of perception, one that factors in The Truth, and one that does does not. Reality is as real as it's ever going to get, but beyond it The Truth remains forever unchanged in the present moment, and only in the present moment is all that is.
how is the observer beyond both? The observer ceases to exist when there is no dualism... The conscious, egotistic 'you' is a result of dualism is it not?
I'm going to say the same thing everyone else said, but I just couldn't help myself:
Quote from: 007 on April 28, 2008, 17:11:09
Hi I've got a basic question about the non-dualist philosophy
According to non-dualist philosophy, could it be said that nothing is any better than anything else?
Non dual philosophy has no better or worse- those there are example of duality.
QuoteFor example, could it be said (according to the non-dualist philosophy) that an advanced manifestation technique is no more likely to succeed than a simple technique like creative visualization?
Once again, the terms simple vs. advanced are dualist concepts.
QuoteI hope you can clarify this for me, as I greatly enjoyed Russell Targ's book on this subject but am not sure if I have got the wrong end of the stick.
Thanks from007
You're welcome, although I wasn't really helpful.
Quote from: zipppy2006 on September 20, 2008, 14:23:06
how is the observer beyond both? The observer ceases to exist when there is no dualism... The conscious, egotistic 'you' is a result of dualism is it not?
The observer is beyond both because for anything to exist there must be something observing it, and the observer doesn't cease to exist when there is no dualism, it simply observes only itself. The unmanifest is what the observer sees in itself, that which is outside the present moment - nothing. The true you is nothing but the observer - the egotistic you is simply the ego which, yes, is a manifestation of dualism which has no real reality to it.
But isn't that the point, that dualism is a way of saying that anything that exists as an object has to have an observer? That's why Mystics believe that the manifest world is dual, while the unmanifest isn't, and they believe in both?
I would think so. This reminds me of a simple little poem I wrote a while ago, which I think sums up non-duality in a clever way:
"And yet One Thing Remains"
Looking inside
I look to where
I see nothing
'Cause there's nothing there
And yet one thing remains
Could I ever describe it
You tell me
When you find it