People are not interested in the Non-Dual message.

[melanie]

Also, I think I definitely just get thrown by some of your comments. Perhaps our concepts like you are say are just different. In your one post, you state 'Let's say this 'one' is everything - nothing then would be its polar opposite 'zero' - can't have one without the other.' for example, - this is duality driven. If you are arguing in favour of things being polar opposites in a positive sense, that is duality. And just further confuses me when you seem to be endorsing a non-dual message. There is no duality. There are no opposites. Not in any real sense. If there are, then you have duality, and you are sending a dual message. How are 1 and 0 opposites?

Yes, good point, and that's the point, there are no opposites in reality, opposite are the illusion. Therefore duality is an illusion.

1 & 0 are the same, only in their appearance do they differ.
If you take 1 and keep on adding 0 that will take you to infinity.

Human beings have a lot of trouble with the meaning of infinity.
Infinity is obviously the largest number anyone can think of, but why can't you add a 1 to infinity to make it bigger?
Because if you could, then the first number would not have been infinity in the first place.

[saturdayjulysecond]

Yes, I would support that awareness can exist without a body. And, I would not view non-dual messages as being necessarily nothingness or emptiness. Dual is two. Nondual is not two. Singular as worked out quite well in my experience (monism). You just need to identify this singular thing correctly, and even when you do (which I believe to be awareness) absolutely, you still get difficulties that can arise.

I will attempt to make this a brief summary of the modern day problem of duality. Have you read anything by Rene Descartes? He was around in the 1600's and at quite the impact on philosophy, particularly skepticism and other area such as mathematics - cartesian plane. So anyways, modern day problems of dualism more or less stem from him. He viewed there being two primes substances inherent to the universe res cogitans and res extensa, roughly translated as thinking things, and things extended in space. His quote 'I think therefore I am', proved that certain knowledge was possible, namely his own existence which he could not doubt because he thought. Even if he didn't exist, something was there, thinking, doubting etc.

Anyways, so he thought that these things differed. In that there were certain parts of us that were thoughts, and other parts extended in space. So you had a very split duality between thinking things, and physical things extended in space (materialism vs idealism). Later, some would argue that only res extensa were real, while others argued for idealism, and res cogitans. These are types of monism (perhaps, you could have people who believe these things and not be monists), though at the moment I forget what they're called. Essentially, materialists and idealists. People who believe the world is created strictly of material things, or mental things and mind. While you also have neutral monists who believe that these two (mind and matter) are not separate but share something in common, and that they both share something in common based on some other thing. Or dualists, who might believe in both, and be very unsure about things... because how is it possible for both to exist?

The problem with this, is that the two are completely separate and share nothing in common. Think about this. Thinking things exist. Physical things exist. They are wholely separate and different and share nothing. This is IMPOSSIBLE. Hence big problems. You can't have two things that share absolutely nothing in common that exist side by side. Think about it, if you have any two things say A, B, and C. In order for them to have relations with each other of any kind, they have to share something in common by which they can interrelate, and hence, because of this common factor, they share commonalities and are not wholely separate. So, strong dualism stems from this very influential view despite its internal impossibilities.

The easiest way around dualism is monism. One thing that unites the whole universe. This one substance can be split into any number of smaller properties. That isn't a problem. So long as there is something shared and universal.

Obviously, within such a short space the above was most certainly a summary. I'm sure something somewhere elaborates or better explains the view, and perhaps something was slightly inaccurate, but just to get it down in a few paragraphs, I think the above at least serves as a guide to the origins and such.

Going further, I just try to associate all things in terms of awareness. Everything! Rocks, plants, ideas, thoughts, etc etc etc. Everything! My toe lol.

Think about you, and think about the body you have. You are awareness. You have a body. But your body is also comprised of awareness. I might have some more radical views though... I think you and your body might be some kind of symbiosis, though this requires more thought on my part. No point in sharing what I can't even fully work out. Although, for the sake of just the idea, nothing absolute... why not. You have awareness, ie self awareness and consciousness. But your body also has its own modes of awareness. You don't regulate consciously many forms of your body's functions. You don't control heart beat or breathing at all times. Certainly you could have heavy influences on these things, ways to slow or speed up heart beat, you could just hold your breath and stop breathing altogether. But go to sleep, and your body takes care of it all itself. Think immune system. Your body is aware when it is infiltrated by something (an awareness) that isn't itself. And generally tries to destroy it. Infections etc. The idea needs to be developed more, worded better. But everything is layered in awareness. Each one of your cells, organs... separate awareness. But also unified in the body as a whole. And that body as a whole is controlled more or less by your awareness, and that awareness can be projected internally to the body itself, or externally to the outside world. Lot's of combos.

So, on another point. No I don't think awareness needed anything to be aware of itself. In order to have an identity perhaps. Ie, how do you define your identity? You are a sports player, or you have this job, or you are this height, this belief, etc. You define yourself as an identity. This requires 100% that you view yourself as separate, having boundaries. My body you might say is a boundary, my job, sex, beliefs, religion, political views etc clothes whatever. But originally, there was no separation. Awareness just existed. It doesn't need an identity. Its everything in its entirety. There is no me no you. Perhaps, this all is more involved, again short paragraphs... what can I do.

The fun began, in my opinion, when awareness decided to do something... split in two! Although this isn't required. Awareness could have began also, with multiple identities. I think of it this way. Let's say before physical things or time space of any kind. There was awareness. Even though this awareness was original and whole, it consisted of numbers 1-9, or had qualities of numbers 1-9. It wasn't enough to be separate identities or maybe it was who knows. But the point, is that whether awareness as a form of being started one, or a small number of equals, and some point division began. And continuously, more division occurs. Also, unification. We all choose to connect or divide with our fellow man. Awareness could have started as one with parts to elaborate on the earlier point. For instance think of yourself. You have a method to breathe, act, consume, excrete waste, reproduce, touch, smell, feel, etc etc etc. What if these things are inherent to awareness itself? Awareness, by its very nature senses, breathe consumes etc. Whatever started this all had incredibly awesome potential and at its fundamental base, although simplistic, would also be extremely involved. And then there was decision to divide, create life, create time, space, bla bla bla. Give some of those things more complexity, more awareness, less awareness, free will bla bla bla.

Hopefully the above wasn't to erratic. Probably not one of my better posts in my life... but owe well. There is a lot to it. That's why the book is under way. Not something that is to easily expressed in several sentences. More of a chapter by chapter based thing.

[melanie]

Yes, I would support that awareness can exist without a body.

How?

And, I would not view non-dual messages as being necessarily nothingness or emptiness.

''Non-duality is the view that 'everything is self’ and that ‘self is empty’ because everything is said to originate and abide in the unalterable and undivided, primordial state of the mind.''

[melanie]

I think therefore I am'

This quote was wrong. It would be more correct to put it into the context of ...... ''I AM therefore I think''

[melanie]

The Four Philosophical Extremes

These are nihilism, eternalism, monoism and dualism.

Dzogchen differs from nihilism in the sense that there is not only Emptiness, but that reality is a constant dance between Emptiness AND Form.

Dzogchen differs from eternalism by the fact that reality is a Constantly Changing and dynamic expression of Awareness – everything is bound to change and give way to something else.

Dzogchen differs from monoism in the sense that Non-Duality does not negate the existence of Multiplicity, the many varied expressions of consciousness that make up our experience of reality.

Dzogchen differs from Duality in that all things are interconnected in the inseparability of the Mind as root and foundation of all things.

[saturdayjulysecond]

Well, I'll respond to the second post first. The quote isn't wrong.... it's Descartes famous statement. "I think therefore I am".

Many people have altered it in this manner "I am therefore I think". But this fails to recognize what Descartes was striving towards. There was a time when skeptics had a very powerful hold in philosophy (to a smaller extent, still does, ever met someone who tries to tell how can you really know anything? etc_. How can anyone say they know anything? Descartes put an end to it. He doubted everything he thought he knew. He thought for a long time. Realized that he was thinking, doubting, an entity that did various things on the most basic level. Therefore, to start, the most important thing to prove that knowledge is possible is your existence. Because he thought, because he doubted, because of his subjective awareness, he could 100% affirm, that he existed, that he 'was', hence, "I think therefore I am". The wording is correct for his intent.

I am therefore I think more or less misses what Descartes was demonstrating... in my view of the change to the quote. Obviously you exist, and therefore everything that belongs to your existence is due to your existence. You wouldn't say, I can lift my hand, therefore I exist, you exist, therefore you can lift your hand. But in Descartes context, he literally doubted everything he thought he knew, and worked backwards. What can you know, really know. That you exist. Why? Because while you are thinking and doubting about all the things you think you may or may not know... something is undergoing that experience of questioning, therefore you exist. I think therefore I am.

For non-duality... where did you get the term non-duality? The term doesn't strictly mean everything is self, and self is empty. Seems more like a religious or otherwise philosophical idea... but a very specific one. Again, dual is based on duality. That there is actually dualism present in the world. Good vs Evil. For instance. There are those who would say, no that dual world isn't the case. There must be something that is non-dual. Certainly, self might be one way to go... but there are endless ways and alternatives to dualism. Again, non-dual is anything that is not two. There are some things that are based on three. Seven. Etc.

How can something exist without a body? Hard to prove. But it is certainly conceivable. For instance, let us say we normally view things that have both physical extension (in space) and we see them repeatedly, so obviously they exist in time. Take an abstract thought, and remove it from the localization in space. Say, that some things might potentially be able to exist in time but be without spacial extension. They would be immaterial. Certainly a more difficult thing to grapple with, but again, I would have to say it is more likely the case that such a thing is possible.

[saturdayjulysecond]

Never heard of Dzogchen, might have to read into a little bit. I googled it... I think it is quite similar to monism from first glance. Monism doesn't necessarily negate multiplicity... if it does in the traditional sense, not in the way I'm suggesting it. I am promoting that all things can be reduced to awareness (one substance for all), but there is potential in my mind that this can have multiplicity at the basic level. Like I said earlier, perhaps the most basic form of awareness includes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 , 7, 8, 9. These are all the most basic aspects of awareness, but they are one. Not sure if that's a paradox. 1 is not first. Then two. They just coexisted simultaneously.

Perhaps to make it more clear. Think of light. Light is white in it's purest form (if I remember correctly) But hit it through a prism, and you get the rainbow. White light is no more purple in nature than it is red yellow or green or otherwise. The colours are melt into white light equally. In light, all colours are present, but we say light universally. We don't distinguish. Very much the idea I will be writing about. (literally, that will probably make it's way in there some where as an example).

[melanie]

Well, I'll respond to the second post first. The quote isn't wrong.... it's Descartes famous statement. "I think therefore I am".

Many people have altered it in this manner "I am therefore I think". But this fails to recognize what Descartes was striving towards. There was a time when skeptics had a very powerful hold in philosophy (to a smaller extent, still does, ever met someone who tries to tell how can you really know anything? etc_. How can anyone say they know anything? Descartes put an end to it. He doubted everything he thought he knew. He thought for a long time. Realized that he was thinking, doubting, an entity that did various things on the most basic level. Therefore, to start, the most important thing to prove that knowledge is possible is your existence. Because he thought, because he doubted, because of his subjective awareness, he could 100% affirm, that he existed, that he 'was', hence, "I think therefore I am". The wording is correct for his intent.

Did Descartes forget to ask himself - Who & Where is the 'I' that thinks?

[saturdayjulysecond]

To be honest, I disagree with a large amount of the man's views. But you can certainly respect what he was attempting.

As he was alive some 400 years ago, I have no idea what did and did not make its way into his considerations, and its been a while since I've taken classes about him.

Also, anything he did do in trying to figure these things out would be based on 17th century ideals.

But no, in my understanding, Descartes never really went into the who and where the 'I'. In all honesty, the 'I' wasn't really even relevant to some extent. Just to prove that despite whatever he or the 'I' he might believe in was, all that mattered was that some entity, some thing was doubting and thinking his subjective experience. This proved something existed. For him, he went with 'I' naturally... he was a european living in those days. I wouldn't counter him with heavy buddhism or whathaveyou like 'I' doesn't exist. For him, it didn't have to. All that mattered was that you could know, by your own subjective awareness, that something has to be living and doubting and thinking and all that jazz based on the fact that you are thinking and doubting. You are aware of it. So how can you deny something so self-evident. Skeptics have an extremely difficult task negating this view.

He did give a thought, don't think it holds much water, or that it gained much acceptance over time, that the physical and mental substances combined in the pituitary gland (in an attempt to reconcile is own obvious impossible views, ... but yeah, again 1600s just learning about all anatomy... so yeah). This shared the experience for humans. To experience mental and physical states. Who knows, maybe he's right? lol how would you prove or disprove such a theory. although, I think it has more to do with hormones and what not.