Is nonduality woo?

[GliderGuider]

Moving towards Jnana
I realized about 3 years ago that I was finally setting aside my lifelong persona of atheistic materialism and becoming a spiritual seeker of some sort. Since that moment my constant problem has been to figure out what "spirituality" means to me, especially since I have no interest whatsoever in gods or worship. It seemed that every form of spirituality I encountered demanded some form of belief in things I couldn't believe in, or some form of worship that was interesting but didn't feel real.

The closest thing I discovered to a compatible form of spirituality was Zen, but even that struck me as too arid and formal. I remained alert to the possibility that there was a river between these two shores, and kept my eyes open for signs that might lead me in its direction.

Along the way I got tantalizing hints, especially during meditation – a repeated sense of oceanic consciousness, and even a couple of fleeting instances of complete nondual awareness. It was those experiences that steered me away from the more traditional bhakti or devotional approaches that I'd been exposed to, and toward a pure nondualism.

At the same time I have grown increasingly aware of my need for connections to other people and the life of the universe around me, connections that resonate with deep emotional qualities. I yearn for the joy that comes with the ability to look at someone or something else and realize, "We are not one, and we are not two."

The final impetus has come from being re-united with a woman who seems to be my own self in another body. She has been on a similar path since we lost contact 27 years ago, and has pointed me towards the nondual Advaita/Jnana approach of "pure wisdom". I'm relieved by the sense of rightness in this approach, as it fits my nature to a T. And it turns out there are a LOT of people on this path, both teachers and students.

This new awareness has given me a framework for discernment – the welcome ability to give the teachings of Ramana Marharshi, Nisargadatta, Ekhart Tolle, Adyashanti, Osho, A. H. Almaas, Robert Wolfe and so many others a place within my own life.

I just started reading Robert Wolfe's eBook Living Nonduality, and that prompted me to write this post in the hopes that this path might interest a few others.

So what's your opinion of such nondualism as a path? Essential? Useful? Interesting? Pointless? Bogus? A trap?

[skepticscott]

1. Since it has no more objective meaning

than "spirituality", and can be pretty much anything anyone decides it is, probably yes. Woo. But as long as you're willing to be honest and say "I don't care if this makes sense or not, it makes me feel better", you likely won't do any real harm with it.

[GliderGuider]

8. Fowler has something interesting to say about the perceived potential for harm

Not to the individuals themselves, but to their society:

Stages of Faith

Stage 6 is exceedingly rare. The persons best described by it have generated faith compositions in which their felt sense of an ultimate environment is inclusive of all being. They have become incarnators and actualizers of the spirit of an inclusive and fulfilled human community.

They are "contagious" in the sense that they create zones of liberation from the social, political, economic and ideological shackles we place and endure on human futurity. Living with felt participation in a power that unifies and transforms the world, Universalizers are often experienced as subversive of the structures (including religious structures) by which we sustain our individual and corporate survival, security and significance. Many persons in this stage die at the hands of those whom they hope to change. Universalizers are often more honored and revered after death than during their lives.

[Silent3]

2. I'd call it a possibly interesting perspective, if not take too seriously...

...otherwise pointless.

There are ways you are "at one" with all of the universe, there are ways you aren't. Why make a big deal about that? Why act like it's some big fundamentally important life decision to follow the "path" of nonduality instead of duality, when each is just a useful perspective to apply as needed in different situations? Why dress it up in talk of "pure wisdom" and other woo-alert triggering language?

[GliderGuider]

12. It's a standard characteristic of any philosophy

that there will be be people who see the point and those who don't. The nice thing about living in our culture is that there is no significant penalty imposed for adopting unapproved worldviews.

Why dress it up in such language? Because that's the language the practitioners themselves use. It's similar to using the words "strong atheism" and "weak atheism" rather than just talking vaguely about atheism - it gives those who might be interested a definitive link back to the ideas.

In the case of "pure wisdom", the term was coined to differentiate philosophical practices like Jnana yoga from the more physical or devotional forms. In Jnana as I understand it there is no worship, and there are certainly no Downward Dogs.

Regarding your comment about duality and nonduality being useful perspectives one can apply as needed, that's quite true. However, developing an abiding nondual awareness seems to take a lot of focused attention, which is why it's called following a a path. To those who are taken by the approach it is indeed a "big fundamentally important life decision" -- not least because it involves a lot of unlearning of deeply embedded cultural constructs. The fact that most people would not see value in such deprogramming isn't terribly surprising.

[Silent3]

13. "adopting unapproved worldviews"

Ah, yes, you're following an "unapproved" world view, you brave rebel, you! :eyes:

Why dress it up in such language? Because that's the language the practitioners themselves use. It's similar to using the words "strong atheism" and "weak atheism" rather than just talking vaguely about atheism - it gives those who might be interested a definitive link back to the ideas.

It's one thing to have a technical vocabulary or a specialized jargon so you can speak more easily and clearly about things which you are studying in greater detail than the general population. It's a different thing to have a pretentious, self-aggrandizing specialized vocabulary with phrases like "pure wisdom".

(emphasis mine)

The fact that most people would not see value in such deprogramming isn't terribly surprising.

Ah, yes, you are so triumphantly breaking free the blinkered masses with their programmed point of view, walking into the New Light of Pure Wisdom.

[ZombieHorde]

3. Duality and non-duality are just ways people categorize stuff.

Changing the way you categorize the things in your life will make you think differently, at least for a while.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mereological_nihilism">Mereological nihilism is another fun way to categorize your world view. Mereological nihilism is usually applied to objects, but I often enjoy applying it to events and thoughts as well. The combination of mereological nihilism and non-duality would be a hoot.

Then check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_atomism">Buddhist atomism. The "See also" section has some more fun links.

Both links to Wikipedia.

[GliderGuider]

10. I have a bit of a different take on it.

In order to categorize stuff, one by definition has to adopt a dualist perspective. To a nondualist there are no categories.

Robert Wolfe says something interesting about this. He claims that a very common human mistake is to mis-identify the relative as the absolute. In his opinion the absolute is not the opposite of the relative, because it does not stand in relation to it. There are can be no opposites to the absolute, again by definition.

Mereological nihilism is an interesting philosophy I hadn't run across before. It seems to be very similar to nondualism, except it uses the term "nothing" where nondualists usually use the term "absolute" or "that" or something similar.

[ZombieHorde]

19. Isn't nondualism a category of one? Everything is a part of the whole?

The whole being the universe, the mind, or something of a religious nature.

[GliderGuider]

22. It's only a "category of one" from the dualist point of view.

From a nondualist POV it's not a category, because that would imply there are other categories, which there aren't.
Categorization is an inherently dualistic idea.

Clear as mud?

[ZombieHorde]

28. Don't nondualists still need to use categories?

Nondualists don't try to eat the sidewalk, they eat objects in the category of food. They don't wear items in the category of cell phones, they wear items in the category of clothes. Categories are still recognized and used.

[GliderGuider]

31. Everybody needs to eat.

Functioning in the real world is impossible without a sense of self/other.

Here's an analogy: mathematicians need to eat too. Having a deep passion and expertise in some abstract area of human endeavour doesn't prevent one from doing the mundane things we all need to do in order to survive.

[ironbark]

4. "We are not one, and we are not two." is not "woo"

James Fowler’s Stages of Faith Development-

•Stage 1 – "Intuitive-Projective" faith (ages of three to seven), is characterized by the psyche's unprotected exposure to the Unconscious.

•Stage 2 – "Mythic-Literal" faith (mostly in school children), stage two persons have a strong belief in the justice and reciprocity of the universe, and their deities are almost always anthropomorphic.

•Stage 3 – "Synthetic-Conventional" faith (arising in adolescence) characterized by conformity

•Stage 4 – "Individuative-Reflective" faith (usually mid-twenties to late thirties) a stage of angst and struggle. The individual takes personal responsibility for their beliefs and feelings.

•Stage 5 – "Conjunctive" faith (mid-life crisis) acknowledges paradox and transcendence relating reality behind the symbols of inherited systems

•Stage 6 – "Universalizing" faith, or what some might call "enlightenment".


M. Scott Peck, M.D- STAGES OF SPIRITUAL GROWTH


STAGE I:Chaotic, antisocial. Frequently pretenders; they pretend they are loving and pious, covering up their lack of principles. Although they may pretend to be loving (and think of themselves that way), their relationships with their fellow human beings are all essentially manipulative and self-serving. They really don't give a hoot about anyone else. I call the stage chaotic because these people are basically unprincipled. Being unprincipled, there is nothing that governs them except their own will. And since the will from moment to moment can go this way or that, there is a lack of integrity to their being. They often end up, therefore in jails or find themselves in another form of social difficulty. Some, however, may be quite disciplined in the services of expediency and their own ambition and so may rise in positions of considerable prestige and power, even to become presidents or influential preachers.

STAGE II:Formal, institutional, fundamental, beginning the work of submitting themselves to principle-the law. but they do not yet understand the spirit of the law, consequently they are legalistic, parochial, and dogmatic. They are threatened by anyone who thinks differently from them, and so regard it as their responsibility to convert or save the other 90 or 99 percent of humanity who are not "true believers." They are religious for clear cut answers, with the security of a big daddy God and organization, to escape their fear of living in the mystery of life, living in the uncertainty of the unknown.

STAGE III:Skeptic, individual, questioner, including atheists, agnostics and those scientifically minded who demand a measurable, well researched and logical explanation. A phase of questioning, is analogous to the crucial stage of emptiness in community formation. In reaching for community the members of a group must question themselves. Despite being scientifically minded, in many cases even atheists, they are on a higher spiritual level than Stage II, being a required stage of growth to enter into Stage IV. The churches age old dilemma: how to bring people from Stage II to Stage IV, without allowing them to enter Stage III.

STAGE IV:Mystic, communal. Out of love and commitment to the whole, using their ability to transcend their backgrounds, culture and limitations with all others, reaching toward the notion of world community and the possibility of either transcending culture or -- depending on which way you want to use the words -- belonging to a planetary culture. They are religious, not looking for clear cut, proto type answers, but desiring to enter into the mystery of uncertainty, living in the unknown. The Christian mystic, as with all other mystics, through contemplation, meditation, reflection and prayer, see the Christ, Gods indwelling Spirit, in all people, including all the Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, Jews and so forth, recognizing the connectedness of all humanity with God, never separating himself from others with doctrine -- the words of fallible men who experienced God and attempted to record their experience in human words, words that became compromised the moment they were penned under the limitations of fallible men who wrote them, and we, fallible men and women who read them.

[GliderGuider]

7. I likes me some Fowler.

I also like Peck's expansion of his stages. I come from a Stage III family that has exhibited no desire to move beyond that position. As Peck puts it in The Different Drum:

There are those in Stage III who will not progress to Stage IV - that is, anything that is beyond the empirical data and observation of analysis. All intuitive knowledge, all experience outside of scientific measurement and factual construction is rejected, as the Greek frame of mind of intellectual analysis is favored and the Hindu frame of mind, that of the essence of inexpressible "being," and "existence," is rejected as fallacious.

It's easy to see evidence of this position, even here.

I think Peck stops one stage short,though. I'm fairly sure there is a Stage V (similar to Fowler's Stage 6) in which all cultural and personality identifications "fall away". As Fowler notes, not many people get to that point. My bet is there are much less than a thousand such individuals alive at the moment, out of 7 billion of us. One example (though he's dead now) would probably be Ramana Maharshi.

[TZ]

9. I didn't know you could get MD's in "spiritual growth"!

I imagine the Medical Schools are just packed with students wanting to major in it! :sarcasm:
Quoting some quack doesn't make this any less woo. It is. But if someone wants to believe in it, thats their choice.
But please, don't tell me this is any sort of science, its not.I get pissed off by people like you that cannot tell the difference between philosophy and science two entirely different things. I'm just as qualified to write about sprituality as any doctor! :eyes:

[GliderGuider]

11. One doesn't, obviously

From Peck's bio:

Biographical Information

Dr. Peck received his B.A. degree magna cum laude from Harvard College in 1958, and his M.D. degree from the Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine in 1963. From 1963 until 1972, he served in the United States Army, resigning from the position of Assistant Chief Psychiatry and Neurology Consultant to the Surgeon General of the Army with the rank of Lieutenant Colonel and the Meritorious Service Medal with oak leaf cluster. From 1972 to 1983, Dr. Peck was engaged in the private practice of psychiatry in Litchfield County, Connecticut.

On March 9, 1980 at the age of 43, Dr. Peck was nondenominationally baptized by a Methodist minister in an Episcopalian convent (where he has frequently gone on retreat).

So he was a psychiatrist and neurologist who developed an interest in faith and its development some time around the age of 40.

No, this isn't science. It's an important part of life for many people, though. Life apparently consists of more than science.

And finally, of course you're as qualified to write about spirituality as any doctor. The only qualification you need for that is a degree of thoughtfulness, some openness and the desire to do so.

[raccoon]

5. Would you please translate your thread title into English?

What is "woo?"

[GliderGuider]

6. It's a colloquial contraction of "woo-woo"

woo-woo: adj. concerned with emotions, mysticism, or spiritualism; other than rational or scientific; mysterious; new agey.

It's a common term of derision on this board, typically applied to people or ideas that don't adhere to a strictly rationalist, materialist framework.

[Silent3]

15. Pray tell, what exactly is this "strictly rationalist, materialist framework"?

And people working in this framework call anything concerned with emotion "woo"?

There are things that are irrational, and things that are merely non-rational. What I call "woo" is irrational.

As for the "materialist" part of a "materialist framework", I think a lot of people who criticize a "materialist framework" conveniently blur two different meanings of the word "materialist", and further, apply a pretty stupidly limited straw man interpretation to the physical meaning of that term.

The meaning of "materialist" relevant to scientific discourse is that of explaining and exploring phenomena in terms of physical laws, the interactions of particles and energy (strictly defined energy, not the bastardized imprecise woo usage of the word). It's about following Occam's Razor, and not resorting to invoking ghosts and spirits and psychic vibrations unless or until the much-better-established physical world is insufficient to the task.

There's also "materialist" as in greedy, fixated on the pursuit of wealth and physical possessions, unconcerned with emotional life.

It's quite easy to be a materialist of the first sort without being a materialist of the second. It doesn't take "woo" to deal with living an emotional life where love and friendship and peace are more important than possessions.

[GliderGuider]

17. In this context I use "materialist" in your first sense.

The interesting question that comes up for me from what you wrote is how one decides what is irrational and what is non-rational?

For an idea to be non-rational it merely has to exist outside the framework of reason. It seems to me that the word "irrational" is a value judgment, at least in any domain except mathematics. If so, values are strongly dependent on the cultural context. An idea (like nondualism for instance) that seems non-rational in one setting may seem irrational in another, depending on whether there is a pejorative judgment attached to it or not.

I guess what I'm wondering is whether people see the idea of nondualism as non-rational or irrational.

And to answer the question in your subject line:

A "strictly rationalist, materialist framework" is one in which only phenomena that can be measured and/or perceived with the physical senses are assigned significant value.

[Silent3]

18. Are you saying that with a "strictly rationalist, materialist framework"...

...a person doesn't believe love or friendship have any "value" until love is isolated in a test tube, or friendship can be measured via a friendshipometer?

Do you believe that only escape from that is irrationality or woo?

I think you're laboring under exactly the kind of stupidly blinkered straw man of materialism that I had in mind.

[GliderGuider]

21. No, I'm not saying that.

Not at all.

[PanoramaIsland]

29. You know, it's perfectly possible to find value in meditation and ritual without believing in

irrational B.S. (psychic vibrations, tarot readings, yaddity ya). In fact, there are some corners of the Zen world that are known for completely eschewing any metaphysical beliefs - in which "nirvana" either doesn't exist or doesn't matter, and "enlightenment" is just mental training with a "spiritual"/emotional-experiential bent. I think there's a whole lot of room between hardcore logical positivist atheism and believing in nutty new-age woo which gets ignored by people who like to engage in raging debate about this stuff.

[GliderGuider]

30. +1

Thanks for cutting through to the core of the issue.

[Silent3]

32. I agree with that...

...but does this "nonduality" stuff stay clear of irrational BS or not? I haven't looked into it deeply enough to say for sure, but the first impressions from a bit of searching on the subject don't bode well, starting with a lot of vagueness about what exactly "nonduality" is.

One thing that strikes me as "woo", without even going into "psychic vibrations, tarot readings, yaddity ya", etc., is when people take what I consider to be fairly mundane realizations and observations about life (like, "hey, maybe how I feel inside and treat other people is more important than trying to own as many yachts as possible", or "gosh, everything is connected!") and go on and on about this stuff like they've discovered The Wisdom of the Ages, spin elaborate systems around these things, have revered "teachers" of these things, workshops, seminars, etc.

[GliderGuider]

34. One thing that strikes me as "woo"

Is when people take what I consider to be fairly mundane realizations and observations about life (like, "Hey, balls accelerate when they roll down an incline", or "The sun emits light and heat!") and go on and on about this stuff like they've discovered The Wisdom of the Ages, spin elaborate systems around these things, have revered "teachers" of these things, start universities, grant degrees, etc.

:hide:

[Silent3]

35. Those things, however, lead to things you can test...

...and verify, and they can be built upon in ways that lead to very impressive results that are clear even to people who don't grasp even the most mundane of those initial realizations -- results like the computer you're using now, or landing on the moon.

The kinds of things I'm talking about just lead to a lot of mush. It might be entertaining, maybe it makes some people happy, but it's usually totally unaccountable, and most if not all of the supposed "results" are for "insiders" only. The results are totally indistinguishable from fantasy, self-deception, and placebo effects.

[GliderGuider]

36. You sound very sure

For someone who "hasn't looked into it deeply enough to say for sure" whether nondualism is irrational or not.

The value of science is a fairly recent cultural artifact, and depends on a particular view of the position of humans within the universe. The values that one holds as an individual always seem to be of paramount importance in the grand scheme of things, and if a particular value is broadly shared within a culture it can take on the quality of Absolute Truth. I think science and its handmaiden technology have such a position in our civilization.

My point is that the the fact that the values promoted by science, and the cultural values like growth, control and analytical understanding that support them, seem self-evident to most of us isn't an a priori measure of their absolute value. Science give us a certain set of abilities, but whether they are more or less important than the abilities we might develop through meditation (for example) depends very much on who is doing the judging.

[Silent3]

38. I can greatly appreciate a good piano performance...

...without being able to play a note myself, without the ability to read music, without the slightest knowledge of music theory.

I can appreciate driving down a well-made road without the slightest knowledge of civil engineering.

It's often true that the more knowledge of a subject you have, the more deeply and fully you might be able to appreciate the fruits of the study of that subject. I have no doubt that a pianist experiences a piano concert played by another pianist in a very different way than I do.

My lack of a full and subtle appreciation of piano music and good roads, however, doesn't prevent me from seeing the value of study of the relevant subject matter. The people who study those things can "bring something back" from their expeditions into the subject matter which outsiders can appreciate, something that shows their specific efforts have paid off in specific ways.

Where is the "music" of nonduality? Its roads, its medicine, its moon landing? What are the fruits of nonduality, fruits that are clearly distinguishable as dependents on nonduality, as opposed to vague results like personal contentment, for which there are many paths to reach?

...the abilities we might develop through meditation...

Meditation produces measurable results. It only becomes woo when people make insistent claims beyond the measurable results of what meditation is, what it requires, or what it connects to.

[GliderGuider]

39. The idea that in order to be of value something must have fruits

is one of the cultural artifacts I was talking about. I know it seems self-evident to the majority in our culture, but that doesn't make it a universal truth.

Roads, medicine and moon landings are all products of dualism. An illumination of the myriad paths to "vague results like personal contentment" can be one outcome of developing a nondual awareness. The fact that we (generally speaking) seem to value moon landings more than personal contentment and solid algorithms over poetic roadmaps simply speaks to our acculturation.

[Silent3]

40. It's not a matter of valuing moon landings over personal contentment...

...it's that one thing shows that the specifics of what you're talking about actually matter, and the other thing can result in so many ways that all the babble of Wise Teachers and "pure wisdom" is just window dressing, a lot of intellectual masturbation with nothing to indicate there's more to it than that.

I see you also have a perfect circular defense mechanism too: any criticism of whatever this "nondualism" stuff actually means can be quickly and easily dismissed as arising from "dualistic thinking". Much like a Christian fundamentalist can ascribe anything that would challenge the authority of the Bible as "the work of the devil".

To go back to your OP... the more you say about this nondualism of yours, and even more, the more you avoid saying, points pretty clear to an answer: Yes, it's woo.

Maybe there is a non-woo version of "nondualism", but I see no indications that you are in possession of it.

[PanoramaIsland]

46. I don't generally engage a lot in Buddhist institutions directly due to the woo-factor

sometimes, and as an artist it strikes me how similar meditation and contemplative ritual can feel to my art practice. Why do I draw stories? I'm frankly not certain. I do know, however, that when I really get into my work, I can look up from my paper with a grumbling stomach to realize that I've been drawing for the last four or five hours. Under the right circumstances - the right part of the creative process, the right level of enthusiasm, the right music, a glass of cheap wine - I can attain an amazingly direct interface with my world, or at least with the tiny world slowly taking shape in front of me. It's at times like this that "nondual"-speak makes sense to me; the meditation is a device with which I attempt to access that headspace at will.

All of the woo surrounding Buddhism and meditation strikes me as artifact of its pre-scientific origin, of its having entered the cultural bloodstream via spiritual teachings and ultimately institutionalized religion. It seems to me to be much like Isaac Newton's involvement with alchemy: a product of his eccentricity, yes, but also of his times, and not really much of an obstacle to appreciating the thing itself. Whatever their wooiness, Zen orders and other meditation-focused traditional Asian organizations have gotten very good at stimulating contemplative and direct-interface (or, to be philosophically correct, less-indirect-interface) mind states in people. I can't take "psychics" seriously, but I can understand a person's desire to go off to Tassajara in the mountains and spend a month or a summer attempting to stimulate direct-immersion experiences in themselves. I can't explain exactly why, in concrete terms, such experiences are desirable, but then again, I can't exactly explain why I'm an artist, either.

Insofar as the Ancient Fucking Ritual surrounding these activities isn't -exceedingly- wooish, and is simply part of the attempt to get to Planet Nondual Experience, I'm cool with it. I'm pretty woo-averse, though - I can't do most forms of Buddhism for that reason. The especially folk belief-laden forms make my eyes roll into the back of my head - Tibetan Buddhism is particularly bad.

I just have a meditation cushion, and I sit on it - pretty simple, really. I've got a book of Zen chants, because reciting the syllables of Sanskrit transliterated into Chinese, then Korean, then Japanese - and rendered meaningless in the process - helps me to get into headspace, to entrain myself. I ascribe no particular meaning or importance to the chants (though others do); if they were in English, they would be useless.

I've got no special philosophy around these experiences; I don't buy into talk of nirvana and reincarnation any more than you do. I just find them valuable in and of themselves.

[Silent3]

49. That all makes a lot more sense.

I'm still not sure I totally get what nondualism is supposed to be, but I certainly don't consider seeking interesting new mental states, in and of itself, "woo". I don't even have a problem with that fact that some pretty nonsensical seeming practices or rituals might be effective ways to reach these different states.

What you're talking about with drawing, which I've only experienced to a much more limited extent, makes me think about a book I read many, many years ago called "Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain" (or something like that). It was about trying to see past the ways we analytically parse the visual world, trying to see shapes and colors and shades apart from analyzing them into, for example, "face" and "eye" and "table".

I learned transcendental meditation during my first year in high school, from, of all people, a Catholic priest. I never got that good at it, but it was still pleasant and relaxing. A few years afterward I went to see a stage hypnotist (with a friend from the half-year of Catholic high school when I met that priest, before I went back to public high school). This guy was able to get me into a deeper trance than I ever achieved myself. It felt really great, very calm and peaceful. I think that even my limited familiarity with that state of mind, however, took my suggestibility away. When the hypnotist had me wake up and tried to get me to do something (I don't even remember what it was anymore) I just said, "fuck no!". My reaction caught him off guard. I'm guessing he could tell I'd gone into a trance very well, so he probably thought he had me.

My best guess at what someone is trying to achieve with nondualism is trying to experience, to whatever extent is possible, the removal of distinctions like self and other, self and universe, subject and object, thought and perception, perception and things perceived, etc.

[PanoramaIsland]

55. Yes! I think you get it. A big part of the training in life drawing goes towards being able

to directly observe the patterns of light, shade, color and so on which are in front of you. In the drawing process, the paper itself can become like a mental backdrop - can cease to appear as an "object" and simply become the ground of one's experience, kind of like how we experience the sky or the ocean.

That experience of seeing the distinctions between this and that, self and other disappear is, I think, inherently valuable and a good - possibly even important - one to have. We needn't attach bodhisattvas and elderly Japanese men in dark blue robes to the experience, although the traditional ritual can be helpful.

People like to ascribe all sorts of interesting woo to nondual experiences, in the same way that people like to attach woo to the experience of taking psychedelic drugs. That doesn't remove the worth of the experience itself, though.

It is -so- gratifying coming to agreement with someone I've been debating with on the Internets. It so rarely happens... XD

[Nihil]

60. Slight sidetrack re. the book ...

> ... a book I read many, many years ago called "Drawing on the Right Side
> of the Brain" (or something like that). It was about trying to see past
> the ways we analytically parse the visual world, trying to see shapes and
> colors and shades apart from analyzing them into, for example, "face" and
> "eye" and "table".

I'm part way through that - going slowly as I want to try out each exercise
before moving on with the text that follows - but I really like the approach
that it seems to be presenting: draw what you see not what you think you see.
(i.e., draw the lines, the shapes, the shading without parsing it and then
trying to draw the object that you've decided is being shown by those lines, etc.)

(Not meaning to detract from the rest of your post but just wanted to add a
recommendation to anyone who is thinking of getting the book!)

:hi:

[rrneck]

14. Years ago

I ran across a thin little book by a fellow named Suzuki about Zen meditation and practice. Most of it, especially for me at that age, used a lot of opaque, elliptical language that I didn't understand. But he did offer a description of how to "sit". So I tried it. As I recall, the focus was on proper posture and and trying to make breathing in and breathing out indistinguishable. I found the experience enlightening. Maybe I'll take it up again.

The practice itself seemed a powerful physical manifestation of a metaphor for placing one's self between one's inner and outer worlds and achieving a sort of balance, and peace, between them. That balance was not achieved by holding on to one or the other, but by letting go of both. Or something like that. I'm sure others have described it much more accurately eloquently.

But, I wonder what happens when we attach language to the experience? That in itself is a difficult task which can result in a lot of word salad. It could be that he who owns the language owns the experience. And I wonder if it makes sense to establish stages of development to an experience which invariably assumes someone to evaluate progress through those stages? Could it be that the most meaningful stage of any spiritual doctrine is to disregard the doctrine and to grow beyond what others might define what is in reality the most personal and unique of human experiences?

Maybe it only becomes "woo" when we try to use it to evaluate others.

[GliderGuider]

16. Very well said.

Thanks!

[PanoramaIsland]

47. Shunryu Suzuki founded the order my father's part of. His language is elliptical, yes,

and his practices strict, but I more or less follow them, and find the experience "enlightening" as you say. He liked to be paradoxical (koan-oxical?), but he didn't indulge in speak about reincarnation or other stuff - he wasn't concerned with metaphysics, only with Just Sitting in and of itself.

[tama]

20. Couple Linguistic Points

Philosophy and dialectics 101: Opposite categories are codependent, like good and evil, defined by each other. Same for duality and nonduality, subjective-objective etc. Requirements or expectations of "objective definitions" of heart felt experiences fall in this linguistic trap.

English and Indo-European languages with strong syntactic subject-object structures make talking about "organic" experience harder, but of course not impossible. Native "primitive" languages that are not based on externalizing and controlling nature often speak of and from very different experience, also and especially without subject-object category, not analytically but bodily (not from the brain but from the heart).

Materialist: Two senses have been discussed, 1) 'greedy' materialism and 2) world view based on classical physics (reductionism to linear causality). Language mostly fails to discuss the third sense of matter and body, to which the OP refers to: I like to stress that "awakening" or sumfink like that has little if anything to do with "spirituality" etc. fluffy woo and all to do with body sense/awareness, breaking the customary boundaries off. It may be possible to discuss this sense of material experience also scientifically in terms of (post)quantum approaches to matter, if willing, but no real need to.

What I've learned from permaculture, math etc. is that strict boundaries open up to border zones that are most fertile areas in terms of complexity, variety etc. Same goes for our unique individuality as gods and creators.

***

PS: I'd like to share these with Glider and others interested:

Met this friend during and after weakend of sweat, peyote etc. seremony (Native American Church tradition, guided by very gentle man from Arizona) held in the ecocommunity I've living with this summer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GO0K6AxXhZs&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/user/filinfinland#p/a/u/2/_WiFEg284i0
http://www.youtube.com/user/filinfinland#p/a/u/1/OyhP9f_7lBs
http://www.youtube.com/user/filinfinland#p/a/u/0/whrtN2hPPt0

Phil sang this medicine song during the vigil:

Only need to sing the medicine song
to remember the place where we all come from
One of the many and the many are one
remember the place where we all come from

and I also like his Earth meditation very much, it's very simple:
Make a ball shape with your hands. Visualize Earth inside the ball shape of your palms. Bring your palms and Earth to your Heart, put Earth in the protection of your Heart and keep your palms crossed over your Heart for a while. Feel and breath.

Last but not least, Little Grandmother speaks:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yK5OOfEmut4&feature=related (1st of 10, they get even better towards the end).

[GliderGuider]

23. Can you clarify your understanding of materialism

as the "third sense of matter and body" you refer to? I get tantalizing whiffs of what this might mean from your comment about awakening not being about "spirituality" but about body sense. I've had a sensation of body boundaries dissolving as part of the awakening process, but I seem to lack a nice neat linguistic box in which to store this definition of "materialism" :-)

[tama]

24. Not really :)

I want to be very carefull not to tamper anyones path and unique experience with my own linguistic boxes ;)... but that said, in my language, where shamanistic roots are still present to be heard, what yogi of India call Kundalini, is called simply "nature", as also the unique character of each individual is called.

Becoming and staying better aware of "chackras" and other energy flows and wave forms through our unique sensual patterns (synaisthetic phenomena and proprioseptic sense are usual and important), body boundaries loosening and becoming less distinct (many speak of different layers of bodies with various names and sizes etc). "Gut feelings" about other beings, places etc., empathy in very literal sense. What I've understood "theoretically" but have no reason to doubt is that the most profound shamanic transformation is that of losing identity with the "normal" physical form and identifying with wave patterns or something like that. Becoming hot in a wierd way, especially hands warming is also common experience.

(Edit to add: at his roughest time, when he made the transmission about ET DNA activation, Phil told that his body sense extended so that he lost his usual sense of touch on skil level (talk about becoming clumsy!), and needed a friends help with the technicalities also because if he went too close to the computer, the screen just started flicking like grazy. I'm glad he got that (and the loneliness that follows) of his chest and is now feeling much better, with new sense of purpose and belonging after the seremony. It's all about love, as much as we can receive. Thusly I became convinced of few months ago through medium of my first Ayahuasca seremony, in a quite physical way.)

Now I feel like laying down for a while to meditate and feel my toes and fingers. :)

[tama]

27. Music

Just heard from Fil that he uploaded his music:

A new song, about the seremony we shared:
http://www.youtube.com/user/filinfinland#p/u/7/BJYVpacbyfo
(Heard now first time, teary-eyed, smiling, flying...)

Older songs
http://www.youtube.com/user/filinfinland#p/a/u/0/-WvPykW6UJc
http://www.youtube.com/user/filinfinland#p/u/1/Wn1yWvQJeYE
http://www.youtube.com/user/filinfinland#p/u/2/dD0H3e9R32g (another song I cant listen without crying :))
http://www.youtube.com/user/filinfinland#p/u/3/1vscz5qOipk
http://www.youtube.com/user/filinfinland#p/u/4/d67Ygj6NLqY
http://www.youtube.com/user/filinfinland#p/u/5/tKr1wKMnxsY
http://www.youtube.com/user/filinfinland#p/u/6/rh8z84Cafuw

[ironbark]

37. 'Bapa'

Geoffrey Gurrumul Yunupingu -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MKC-Jd7KN64

[tama]

41. Thanks, beautifull n/t

[ironbark]

44. Well, I’m handsome, but I wouldn’t call myself “beautifull”…thanks anyway ;-)

[GliderGuider]

33. A. H. Almaas describes "essence" in much the same way

Almaas is a Kuwaiti nondual teacher who has developed a system called "The Diamond Approach".

In his teachings, "essence" is a non-material substance that can be perceived in varying forms within the body, especially during meditation. It has perceptible qualities like form, colour and texture, that give each manifestation a representation of an essential human quality, like Will, Strength, Truth etc. They're kind of like synaesthetic representations of Platonic qualities, similar in some ways to the idea of chakras.

I've experienced them during meditation, and I've found them useful to help focus my thinking on the underlying nature of my thoughts and feelings. As my sense of physical body-boundaries weakens, it becomes easier to create these experiences.

[Silent3]

25. There is only one kind of person

Those who are dualistic, and those who are not.

[GliderGuider]

26. ROFL

Nice one! :thumbsup:

[PanoramaIsland]

48. Nonduality is an experience to practice having, not a thing to attempt to be at all times.

Dualistic thinking is necessary. Perhaps some Buddhist sect or other teaches that we should try to be nondual in our thinking 24/7, but I've never heard of them, and frankly, they're wrong.

[rrneck]

42. Would it be fair to say

that nonduality is a category of one, containing the experience of life as it is lived?

[GliderGuider]

43. It would depend on who you ask.

I know there are many who would agree with that. I wouldn't - for me nonduality is the ground of being. The concept of "category" is the same as the idea "tree" or "pi" - a manifestation of duality. Nondualism is not that. Or it is That, take your pick.
Would you like ranch, Italian or a raspberry-balsamic vinaigrette on that word salad? :evilgrin:

[rrneck]

45. It wouldn't be difficult for me to consider

a ground of being to be the experience of life as it is lived. I like the phrase. It's more poetic.


Anselm Keifer Osiris and Isis, 1985-1987

[RagAss]

50. Forget It !

"From the beginning not a thing exists" - Hui Neng

[GliderGuider]

51. Does a beginning exist?

Is a "beginning" a "thing"? Ah, words.

The Pointing Finger
by Yrs Trly

The pointing finger has seen better days.
Its nail is thick and caked with grime,
Its skin is rough and blistered.
The cuticle is ripped,
The calluses are peeling.
Its knuckles gnarled, its creases cracked,
It trembles in the air.

Overhead, the moon is just a rock.

[RagAss]

52. Not according to Hui Neng.

But he was wise enough to know that if he placed that observation in the present moment he would cause confusion to all that heard it. The observation is that no thing exists intrinsically, all objects are dependent arisings. So he places that back to the very first arising where something arose from the eternal state of "no thing". This was strictly for his audience, who like us, require a time based, back to front view of reality.

[GliderGuider]

53. That makes sense.

Our perception of linear time is one of our great curses.

[RagAss]

54. Amen

[ironbark]

56. "For though all creatures under heaven are the products of Being

Being itself is the product of Not-being"

Dao De Jing.

;-)

[RagAss]

59. Yes.

[YankeyMCC]

57. Do you mean "Wu"

;)

[GliderGuider]

58. Mu!

Wei to go, though...