There is no external world...

[johnsinslot]

Advaita Vedanta is a Hindu philosophy, but it is essentially the same as Zen, Dzogchen, and the metaphysical views found in Taoism.

Yea, the way in which I’ve studied it’s claims were during the time it was interacting, and developing alongside Buddhism & Janism, Jainism?
But yea, it’s the oldest sub extent/extant of Vedānta.
Buddhism & Advaita are nearly indiscernible in this sense that their end goals/beliefs usually align, only differences being in the route taken, and whole & a supposed more personalized style of Maha (Illusion, or Magic.)

Anyways, my inner Buddha is telling me I gotta sleep, y’all take care, I’ll reply later if I see any interesting comments.

 

[RMQualtrough]

Yea, the way in which I’ve studied it’s claims were during the time it was interacting, and developing alongside Buddhism & Janism, Jainism?
But yea, it’s the oldest sub extent/extant of Vedānta.
Buddhism & Advaita are nearly indiscernible in this sense that their end goals/beliefs usually align, only differences being in the route taken, and whole & a supposed more personalized style of Maha (Illusion, or Magic.)

I think one large difference is that in most Buddhist philosophies they have added another level of meditative attainment called "Nirodha Samapatti", AKA cessation. It is when the finite self ceases to experience anything at all and you just skip forward in time. It's a non-experience. It's exactly like general anaesthesia. I have experienced general anaesthetic twice and cessation once or twice?

I don't think that is found in Advaita.

Advaita uses the consciousness moniker and I think that is USEFUL because it causes people to search inwards. If told to search for nothingness, that is not something many people will feel relates to them etc.

I would recommend that a person wishing to understand reality go in order through these practices:

Kashmir Shaivism (matter is still "real", thus a good introduction) -> Advaita Vedanta -> Zen Buddhism -> Taoism.

You can stick on Advaita but once you understand that consciousness itself is no-thing and dependent upon some-thing, you tend to prefer wording that reflects this understanding. But until then Advaita is probably best.

 

[Spooky Doot Skelly]

difference in schools of Buddhism

I don’t care about “schools” I care about the teaching.
I had all these realizations OP was having several years ago, but you grow out of them. At a point they’re just being used as a coping mechanism to not deal with the realities of life. Non-duality does not exist. It isn’t a thing and never will be.

 

[Sinner's Sandwich]

You are me. I am you.

Hell no

 

[RMQualtrough]

Hell no

You are also Chris Chan.

 

[Spooky Doot Skelly]

If both models of what is out there work as they can be verified to, then there is no way to say my TV and the tape measure isn't actually twice as wide (or w.e.) in actuality.

Just checking, do you have some sort of trouble with object permanence? You do realize just because something looks a certain way, doesn’t mean it is that way. The problems with perception and measurement have been dealt with in Measurement Theory and Constructable Numbers in Algebra.
Not to be mean, but you think you’ve stumbled upon something that everyone has missed, when in reality these epistemological “issues” have already been taken care of, but authors of non dual books do not care to look.
You don’t have to engage in mental masturbation and pontification, you are already engaging with reality as it is right now.

 

[RMQualtrough]

Just checking, do you have some sort of trouble with object permanence? You do realize just because something looks a certain way, doesn’t mean it is that way. The problems with perception and measurement have been dealt with in Measurement Theory and Constructable Numbers in Algebra.
Not to be mean, but you think you’ve stumbled upon something that everyone has missed, when in reality these epistemological “issues” have already been taken care of, but authors of non dual books do not care to look.
You don’t have to engage in mental masturbation and pontification, you are already engaging with reality as it is right now.

We are engaging with reality as it is right now, and you will notice that as it is, is perception. If it were evolutionarily beneficial to experience colors as sounds, the argument would no longer be that we step outside of our minds and red still exists there, but that, say, the sound of the G note is there. Humans can experience something similar-ish if they experience synesthesia.

There is no way to get at what is allegedly "behind the scenes" since everything said to be "behind the scenes" is in some way a thing which is perceived, not something divorced from perception. I suggest there is no behind the scenes and reality IS THIS.

"Authors of nondual books" is trivialising an ancient philosophy that predates Christ and is practiced by a huge portion of the Eastern world, and was taught by the Buddha who didn't reach the conclusions via crack pipe and DMT crystals. It's not just like Joe Rogans sitting around stoned talking shit. Actually most on "the path" do not use drugs at all. Drugs is more a tribal practice.

Almost all scientists are into nonduality, they just posit the source as some physical entity. Eventually it will be realized that literal nothingness awaits at the bottom. Something coming from something creates infinite regress. Something comes from nothing.

 

[johnsinslot]

Not to be mean, but you think you’ve stumbled upon something that everyone has missed, when in reality these epistemological “issues” have already been taken care of, but authors of non dual books do not care to look.

I appreciate the effort to stay respectful in a discourse about a purely belief based conversation, challenging beliefs is always a great course of action, so thank you.
Like RM said, simply saying ‘Non-Dual Authors’ plays light upon a Sublet of a Religion/Spirituality that’s much older than even our Nations existence, not to consider it is the oldest of its own Sublets.
So, I don’t think RM being of his attitude during this conversation comes off as if he’s the only person who is aware, or like he’s some enlightened Zen Teacher. I’d hope he wouldn’t lay claim to that, even those Zen Teachers that and concretely agree with Nondualism/Advaita Vedanta do not take the words to 100% face value as far as I’m aware.
Also, those Authors do not care to look?
Richard Sylvester has an entire book directed to answering questions posed on Nonduality.
Christian Krägeloh has an article around answering why Phenomenological Researches failed to capture the true meaning of Nondualism
David Loy has many articles answering criticism on Nondualism
Dennis White has some Q&A’s pertaining to popular criticism based questions on Advaita
Peter Fennar also has a book, and a couple articles centered around it I believe.
Śri Harsa even has a 27 page Article centered around defending it, and even attack two other Monism/Nonduality defenders in their reasonings being inaccurate to the point of Monism/Advaita.

So, I don’t think Advaita ‘Authors’ are lacking in retort to criticism, I just think most of their works aren’t just readily available at a thumbs press on google. You have to kinda dig for their shit, and know their names.

The problems with perception and measurement have been dealt with in Measurement Theory and Constructable Numbers in Algebra.

Okay, could you name your favorite article/book on such? I’m remembering Bohr and Heisenberg, but their works on Mathematical Perception were inherently flawed, and attacked pretty hard by other Advaita/Monism/Nondualist Authors/Teachers/& Philosophers.

Again, thanks for being pretty open to discussion, and otherwise respectful.

 

[Spooky Doot Skelly]

I appreciate the effort to stay respectful in a discourse about a purely belief based conversation, challenging beliefs is always a great course of action, so thank you.
Like RM said, simply saying ‘Non-Dual Authors’ plays light upon a Sublet of a Religion/Spirituality that’s much older than even our Nations existence, not to consider it is the oldest of its own Sublets.
So, I don’t think RM being of his attitude during this conversation comes off as if he’s the only person who is aware, or like he’s some enlightened Zen Teacher. I’d hope he wouldn’t lay claim to that, even those Zen Teachers that and concretely agree with Nondualism/Advaita Vedanta do not take the words to 100% face value as far as I’m aware.
Also, those Authors do not care to look?
Richard Sylvester has an entire book directed to answering questions posed on Nonduality.
Christian Krägeloh has an article around answering why Phenomenological Researches failed to capture the true meaning of Nondualism
David Loy has many articles answering criticism on Nondualism
Dennis White has some Q&A’s pertaining to popular criticism based questions on Advaita
Peter Fennar also has a book, and a couple articles centered around it I believe.
Śri Harsa even has a 27 page Article centered around defending it, and even attack two other Monism/Nonduality defenders in their reasonings being inaccurate to the point of Monism/Advaita.

So, I don’t think Advaita ‘Authors’ are lacking in retort to criticism, I just think most of their works aren’t just readily available at a thumbs press on google. You have to kinda dig for their shit, and know their names.



Okay, could you name your favorite article/book on such? I’m remembering Bohr and Heisenberg, but their works on Mathematical Perception were inherently flawed, and attacked pretty hard by other Advaita/Monism/Nondualist Authors/Teachers/& Philosophers.

Again, thanks for being pretty open to discussion, and otherwise respectful.

Defenses of non duality do not deal with its internal contradictions. Science and materialism already acknowledge that sense perception is the basis of our “reality” and our mental maps are not the territory. That leading to nonduality is a leap in logic that has never been addressed. And these own teachings, both traditions old and new, say that it is truly indescribably or in-discernible by rational thought, as that would itself be a contradiction as well. Basically, it must be experienced directly through spiritual practice to be really “understood” and as such is entirely faith based.

Google or look on Amazon/YouTube for intro textbooks to Measurement theory. You’ll probably need basic mathematics to understand the course. Same with abstract algebra although constructable numbers is more of a subset.

 

[johnsinslot]

to be really “understood” and as such is entirely faith based.

Well yes, it is 10000% faith based, when I get into discussions I always make sure that people know I’m speaking from “Devils Advocate,” or better yet that nothing I say is Fact, Truth, Concrete, or even feasibly such.
I didn’t know I came off that way in this thread, though it’s understandable to see how RM would have gave that vibe off.

Defenses of non duality do not deal with its internal contradictions.

Yes some of the responses I cited by Author name do in fact speak upon the internal contradictions of Advaita, and readily accept that as a whole it is a very contradictory point. I think it was David Loy who mentioned this in his Nondualism: Comparative study of Philosophy ~ “The inherent issue with seeking Nondualism, is that by doing so you are already committing a dualistic act.”

That leading to nonduality is a leap in logic that has never been addressed.

Well, it’s more so under Quantum Logic, or something akin to a Many Valued Logic.
We (I figure you might as well,) know that Tim Maudlin feels very negatively about it, and is a very adamant and outspoken individual on the necessity of Classical Logic or the Two Truth Values logic.
Quantum Logic in Philosophy is a different story honestly, at least I believe so.
Quantum Logic is a ‘Logic’ that distinguishes in general between ‘actual’ properties and ‘possible’ or ‘potential’ ones, opening the door to discuss a realm of existence beyond actuality.

The basis for Quantum Logic in Philosophy from (100% my opinion at the moment) is that what we consider Classical Logic was created by Aristotle, followed by Isaac Newton. I believe, who solidified it into what is now followed upon in modern day Sciences.
We accept these as truth, as an absolute compared to a False, because it’s what has been popularly acknowledged, and believed.
If it had never been brought forth, once ever, and only Many Valued Logic, or Non Classical Logic was, that would be our “Truth”
The response to this is usually, “yea but then we’d be incorrect, and living in ignorance.” From what perspectives? Yours, or a scientist? Neither matter, because you both already follow Classical Logic as a fundamentality of life, and know of you presupposed “Truth/Absolute.”

This is opposed to Non Classical which was created in the 1930’s, or at least given a name, and is a “baby” compared to Classical. I love Hillary Putnams quote on Logic as a whole, “Logic is as empirical as geometry. We live in a world with a non-classical logic” Logic can’t be Classical in his opinion, only because distributive law isn’t universally valid.

You’ll probably need basic mathematics

Fuck I’m screwed lol.

Google or look on Amazon/YouTube for intro textbooks to Measurement theory.

Thank you, I’ll look into it tonight as I’m studying, it’s been good discussing with you, I’ll reply to anything else ya say with a more personally opinionated answer, given I’ve exhausted my Devils Advocacy I believe to it’s core.

 

[RMQualtrough]

Defenses of non duality do not deal with its internal contradictions. Science and materialism already acknowledge that sense perception is the basis of our “reality” and our mental maps are not the territory. That leading to nonduality is a leap in logic that has never been addressed. And these own teachings, both traditions old and new, say that it is truly indescribably or in-discernible by rational thought, as that would itself be a contradiction as well. Basically, it must be experienced directly through spiritual practice to be really “understood” and as such is entirely faith based.

Google or look on Amazon/YouTube for intro textbooks to Measurement theory. You’ll probably need basic mathematics to understand the course. Same with abstract algebra although constructable numbers is more of a subset.

Materialism requires more faith, it already hinges upon "emergence" to explain the generation of immaterial (mind) from material. It is far simpler that our minds AS WELL AS MATTER, are "emergent" from the same source and in substance are one and the same.

We can already verify the existence of perception, which precedes faith (faith is something done by thoughts which are themselves perceptions).

Where there is no literal divide between material and immaterial (literal duality), with all things being equally one and the same (the manifest and the unmanifest), only one type of "thing" emerges. All things exist and play out in the same infinite empty screen of unmanifest.

Much of the unmanifest becomes manifest only by way of perception. If a tree falls and there's nobody to hear it, there is no manifestation of the "thump" sound. Because thump is a perceptual subjective rendering of soundwaves.

The Tao is nondual despite having two sides - nothing and something - because the two are inseparable. It is existence itself as well as non-existence (as the thump sound arises from non-existence when a human ear is near the falling tree). It is one. Nothing can be external if it is fundamentally all one thing. Like proposing a movie exists external to the screen.