Problem with monism.

[SageTree]

In my opinion this is a good way to express Oneness/Unity/Interbeing.

There is a small piece of the 'other' in each 'half', representing the contrast for understanding on the relative plane of reality.

 

[atanu]

Monisn -- the monism that teaches existence-consciousness-bliss as the primary nature of the without a second reality--comprises in its ambit the dualism. In my experience, i am yet to encounter any successful refutation of it. It is not a mere philosophy but is a teaching that is helpful at any stage of life. It does not negate Panentheism. It does not negate Pantheism. But it is different from these two stages. It does not support the Panentheism in its ultimate teaching. Nor does it support a naturalistic Pantheism.

It has no problem of explaining the individual self as in Buddhism and it does not give rise to any doubt as to where the real happiness and power of discernment reside. In it paramartha (final meaning), it encompasses Buddhism, while not negating the role of consciousness, which is the property of the advaitam (of singularity) that supports the phenomenal world.

Without power of discernment there cannot arise ignorance.

Monist teachers, however, warn against applying Monism, to (many) objects of the world, while one is still mired in them. Thus, most monist practices do involve dualistic meditations until the mind is truly emptied of attractions and aversions.

DreadFish is correct in a sense when he says that from the perspective of the Being existing as homogeneous pure existence-consciousness-bliss, there is no concept of numbers -- there is no external-internal and there is no consciousness or no-consciousness. But when the existence-consciousness-bliss power of the homogeneous reality supports a universe, then first it gives rise to one and then many in one. All pervading and omniscience attain meaning here. In homogeneous formless these words have no meaning and neither any number has.

 

[DreadFish]

What is it?


Nay-saying isn't an argument.

I second this. I would like to hear from you, Bob. It is proper etiquette to present an argument if you refute the other persons argument.

Im not here to prove that I am right, and you shouldnt be here just to prove that I am wrong. It's a discussion. Offer up something, we are here to explore this topic, not see who's right.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Would you please address post 15?

 

[DreadFish]

No, it is not - at least not to the best of my knowledge. But perhaps I've overlooked something. So, again: based on what argument?

It's based on the idea that, for something to be conceptualized, it has to have a point of reference. If a phenomenon was completely isolated, it would likely be viewed to have no defining characteristics. It is in relation to other things that something is definable. So, how to we define singularity? If there were no such thing as the concept of plurality, there would be no way to identify singularity, and visa-versa. So, for there to be "one," there has to be "two" or "three" etc. And likewise, for there to be "two" or "three," there would have to be "one."


This is something that can be observed with your own mind if you contemplate it, but one has to drop their ideas and notions before doing so, so as to see clearly without bias.

 

[atanu]

It's based on the idea that, for something to be conceptualized, it has to have a point of reference. If a phenomenon was completely isolated, it would likely be viewed to have no defining characteristics. It is in relation to other things that something is definable. So, how to we define singularity? If there were no such thing as the concept of plurality, there would be no way to identify singularity, and visa-versa. So, for there to be "one," there has to be "two" or "three" etc. And likewise, for there to be "two" or "three," there would have to be "one."


This is something that can be observed with your own mind if you contemplate it, but one has to drop their ideas and notions before doing so, so as to see clearly without bias.

It also be known from the experience of deep sleep. When the mind with its pictures subside, the original constrast-less consciousness surfaces and time, numbers, others, the world etc., all lose meaning.

 

[DreadFish]

It also be known from the experience of deep sleep. When the mind with its pictures subside, the original constrast-less consciousness surfaces and time, numbers, others, the world etc., all lose meaning.

True. Even in dreaming, there is a good example. When dreaming, everything we experience is projected by our mind, including the other people we interact with, so the lines of self and other are clearly seen to be a simple faulty perception and they are in fact, our mind.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

It's based on the idea that, for something to be conceptualized, it has to have a point of reference.

So you're suggesting that that which cannot be conceptualized cannot be true?

 

[DreadFish]

So you're suggesting that that which cannot be conceptualized cannot be true?

Not at all. I am suggesting that these things are merely conceptualizations in and of themselves. They exist only in the mind as conceptualizations. Without the distinctions made through conceptualization of phenomena, one would see through the illusion and observe that all is, for lack of a better description, "not-two," being beyond conventional understanding.

So actually, I guess you could say that which can be conceptualized is not ultimately true.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

That was helpful. Thanks.

 

[DreadFish]

That was helpful. Thanks.

Quite welcome, sir.

 

[Storm]

No, you've it backwards. Two and three cannot be conceptualised without one. But one is always one. There is only one Bob Dixon [me]. I can imagine this and it is reality. I don't need two or three Bob Dixons to imagine myself.

I have to agree with this.

You are right that two and three cannot be conceptualized without one. But it goes both ways. There is no reference point to call something "one" unless there is more than one.

Likewise, the same logic works for the perception of a self. There is no "me" unless there are things that are "not me." There is only me when there are things that are not me.

Things are defined in relation to other things, not because they have inherent abiding nature.

Yes, but monism is the premise that there is only God. There is no not-God.

 

[DreadFish]

I have to agree with this.


Yes, but monism is the premise that there is only God. There is no not-God.

From my understanding it actually goes beyond that to the idea that even "God" is only an aspect of the ultimate, whatever, that all things are an aspect of.
And the different types of philosophical monism dont always identify it as "God."

Taken from the overview here on the site:

Monism is often seen as partitioned into three basic types:

Substantial Monism, (One thing) which holds that there is one substance.
Attributive Monism, (One category) which holds that while there is only one kind of thing, there are many different individual things or beings in this category.
Absolute Monism, which holds that there is only one substance and only one being. Absolute Monism, therefore can only be of the idealistic type. (see below)

What im saying is that for reality to be non-dual, it would have to go beyond being "one (anything)." Being beyond plurality, it would not have definition or a definable ultimate nature. Thus it would not "be", and it would not "not be", it would not both "be" and "not be", and it would not neither "be" or "not be".

 

[idav]

To assume that there is one thing in existence, as opposed to the dualistic ideas that multiple separate things exist and make up everything, requires there to be a two and three to make it a one. For there to be a one, there has to be a two, three etc. otherwise there just is. And if there just is, there has to be is not as well. Ultimately, I just find the idea of monism flawed. In my opinion, a non-dual state requires that we go beyond dualism and monism, into something free of extremes.


Any opinions? Maybe im just misunderstanding this.

Oneness can simply be cooperation of multiple elements to create a complete system. From the view as the system as a whole is there two systems? That is the question for me. An example is that we see all these organisms on the earth but we take a step back we can see the earth as one system in itself which is actually multiple systems creating something at a larger scale. The universe can be seen in the same way where everything within this universe is part of the ultimate system and that there is nothing outside of it or a second system that has greater access. I've also seen discussion of duality within just a human where we distinguish mind and body as two separate things which really depends on how you view the foundation but even then once you take another step back you would see two realities acting as one.

 

[DreadFish]

Oneness can simply be cooperation of multiple elements to create a complete system. From the view as the system as a whole is there two systems? That is the question for me. An example is that we see all these organisms on the earth but we take a step back we can see the earth as one system in itself which is actually multiple systems creating something at a larger scale. The universe can be seen in the same way where everything within this universe is part of the ultimate system and that there is nothing outside of it or a second system that has greater access. I've also seen discussion of duality within just a human where we distinguish mind and body as two separate things which really depends on how you view the foundation but even then once you take another step back you would see two realities acting as one.

I concur. Good way of looking at it. Parts are interconnected to create a whole. The parts have parts, and those parts have parts etc.

 

[SageTree]

Like our whole body might be a universe to a cell....
And it's possible that our known universe is nothing more than a hair/blood/skin cell in the body of the cosmos?

Where the interconnected/interbeing seems to end could expand infinitely in both directions.

 

[DreadFish]

Like our whole body might be a universe to a cell....
And it's possible that our known universe is nothing more than a hair/blood/skin cell in the body of the cosmos?

Where the interconnected/interbeing seems to end could expand infinitely in both directions.

It really could. What if, the universe being the cell in another universe were looped? That perhaps the universe we live in now, could be contained in our own cells? Interesting idea... Definitely paradoxical.

 

[SageTree]

ah man... NOW you're out there dude....



I keed I keed!!!

 

[DreadFish]

ah man... NOW you're out there dude....



I keed I keed!!!

Far out man, far out

 

[DreadFish]

Haha, I was just remembering that one of my first threads had almost the same title, except this time my problem with monism was completely different