Ask a nondual "person"

[mikkel_the_dane]

Only ultimate causal interrogatives are pointless. Causal interrogatives pertaining to method are appropriate and generally bear fruit. Asking, “why do I perceive Salixincendium?” is a reasonable question. Asking “why is Vyavaharika related to Paramartika as it is?” Would seem to be a pointless exercise.

Yeah and if you follow that one all the way down the rabbit hole, the answer is because it is so. But why is it so? Because it is so.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Well, if you accept that there is You and I different in Vyavaharika, why not God in Vyavaharika like Shankara?
.. then the Guards won't allow you and never you can see God.

Where is the need to accept God in Vyavaharika? Vyavaharika can manage just as well without God. Why do you want to insert falsehood upon falsehood? What need do I have to see a God when I can do without it?

Asking “why is Vyavaharika related to Paramartika as it is?” Would seem to be a pointless exercise.

No, it is not unrelated, Zwing. After all, it is what exists in Parmarthika is creating what is perceived in Vyavaharika.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Where is the need to accept God in Vyavaharika? Vyavaharika can manage just as well without God. Why do you want to insert falsehood upon falsehood? What need do I have to see a God when I can do without it?

Well, you don't need that. But you are not the only human. So you do as you do and I do as I do. As long as you don't claim objective authority and I don't, we might find a compromise for the illusion in practice.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Well, you don't need that. But you are not the only human. So you do as you do and I do as I do. As long as you don't claim objective authority and I don't, we might find a compromise for the illusion in practice.

Sure, no two people are alike. There are many who need God (as a support), I have no problem with that. I have a theist family and community. I am probably the only nut case.

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

So I know what to address when answering your question, what is your current working understanding of nonduality?

I guess, as a philosophical term… a perspective on reality? Ah! Perhaps this is what you mean too.

For some reason, as I was reading, I had it in my head that you were referring to it as a form of self-identity -maybe because you had mentioned that other thread about non-binary- and I couldn’t understand.

I must read again!


Humbly,
Hermit

 

[SalixIncendium]

Only ultimate causal interrogatives are pointless. Causal interrogatives pertaining to method are appropriate and generally bear fruit. Asking, “why do I perceive Salixincendium?” is a reasonable question. Asking “why is Vyavaharika related to Paramartika as it is?” Would seem to be a pointless exercise.

Why you perceive SalixIncendium is a result of Maya. It is incorrect knowledge. SalixIncendium is an appearance resulting form ignorance as a result of Maya.

SalixIncendium appears quite real in vyavaharika. In Paramartika, there is no SalixIncendium. There is only Brahman.

 

[SalixIncendium]

No, it is not unrelated, Zwing. After all, it is what exists in Parmarthika is creating what is perceived in Vyavaharika.

What exists in Paramartika? Can existence exist in existence?

 

[Aupmanyav]

If Salixincendium “appears” to me in Vyavaharika, then is his appearance based upon nothing? What is the cause of it? I say that the cause of Salixincendium appearing to me in Vyavaharika is that there is some emanation of ultimate reality within Paramartika which manifests to me as Salixincendium within Vyavaharika.

That we both can perceive Salix simultaneously at our will, by both going to see him, lends credence to the idea that Salixincendium is an appearance based upon an underlying reality.

What you write is correct. Both Salix and yourself are none other than Brahman. Brahman is your causation like of everything else too. Perhaps 'nothing' too is Brahman, although science has not solved that question.
Ah, I forget Salix's location, but it is far away somewhere in Amricanistan. I am old, my wife too is old, the visa fee to Amricanistan is high (they cheated us once - took the money and did not give tourist visas) and so is the travel cost. I would not be able to go, but if Salix or you happen to come to Delhi, kindly be my guests. 'Atithi devo bhava' (The guest is divine).

 

[SalixIncendium]

Ah, I forget Salix's location, but it is far away somewhere in Amricanistan. I am old, my wife too is old, the visa fee to Amricanistan is high (they cheated us once - took the money and did not give tourist visas) and so is the travel cost. I would not be able to go, but if Salix or you happen to come to Delhi, kindly be my guests. 'Atithi devo bhava' (The guest is divine).

Yes, in Amricanistan.

However, I was touring Howrah and Kolkata this morning today on Google Earth. Perhaps I'll visit Delhi this afternoon.

Seriously, though, a visit to India is on my bucket list.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Yes, but the point is that our senses deceive us in Vyavaharika.

Our senses deceive us, or our minds do? One might argue, convincingly enough I think, that these are inseparable, but if that’s so then it’s surely the case that the object, the observer, the mechanism of observation (in this case the senses), and the act of observation are all equally inseparable. In which case, what is the source of the deception, and who or what is being deceived?

 

[Yerda]

Have I ever? Yes. Do I? No.

Fair enough. Is there anything in particular you would recommend to someone who would like to understand nondualism better?

 

[Zwing]

SalixIncendium is an appearance resulting form ignorance as a result of Maya.

I cannot agree. The truth of this must lie in the meaning of “Maya”. Regarding that, there are several etymological options to which we can turn. What is most likely is that our “Maya” is माया • (māyā́), an abstract noun unusually formed from the particle मा • (mā́, “not”/“do not”), and so means “a thing (which is) not”, sometimes given as “not this thing”. Alternatively, “maya” can simply mean “by me”…”by myself”; मया (mayā) being the instrumental singular of अहम् (aham, “I”), and so meaning “by me”, possibly indicating that “(this is the way Brahman is perceived) by me”. Further, “maya” can be a derivative of the Sanskrit verbal root मा (mā, “to know”), and so can mean “knowledge” in the sense of “the knowledge of minds in Vyavaharika”. Perhaps @Aupmanyav or @shivsomashekhar (?) can assist us with the proper derivation of what in English is called “Maya”. We should really have a true sense of what we are talking about.

 

[Zwing]

Our senses deceive us, or our minds do? One might argue, convincingly enough I think, that these are inseparable…

It is so. The mind is dependent upon the senses when it comes to perception.

 

[SalixIncendium]

I cannot agree. The truth of this must lie in the meaning of “Maya”. Regarding that, there are several etymological options to which we can turn. What is most likely is that our “Maya” is माया • (māyā́), an abstract noun unusually formed from the particle मा • (mā́, “not”/“do not”), and so means “a thing (which is) not”, sometimes given as “not this thing”. Alternatively, “maya” can simply mean “by me”…”by myself”; मया (mayā) being the instrumental singular of अहम् (aham, “I”), and so meaning “by me”, possibly indicating that “(this is the way Brahman is perceived) by me”. Further, “maya” can be a derivative of the Sanskrit verbal root मा (mā, “to know”), and so can mean “knowledge” in the sense of “the knowledge of minds in Vyavaharika”. Perhaps @Aupmanyav can assist us with the proper derivation of what in English is called “Maya”. We should really have a true sense of what we are talking about.

I've already offered the meaning of Maya earlier in the thread. Time/space/causation.

Advaita Vedanta also teaches this.

 

[Viswa]

Where is the need to accept God in Vyavaharika? Vyavaharika can manage just as well without God. Why do you want to insert falsehood upon falsehood? What need do I have to see a God when I can do without it?

You said you want Evidence. Right? That's why.

If you don't want Evidence of Presence of God in these Illusions, and want to fix to your falsehood that "I can manage well without God", it's upto you. But, if you want Evidence, Scriptures do show you, that's what I pointed out.

Now, the question is, Do you really want Evidence, or Do you really want to fix to your belief that "you can manage without God"? Choice is yours. Choose Wise.

 

[Zwing]

I've already offered the meaning of Maya earlier in the thread. Time/space/causation.

Advaita Vedanta also teaches this.

I know that “Time, Space and Causation” are attributes which have been given to “Maya”, but it would seem helpful to understand the true etymological meaning of the term.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I know that “Time, Space and Causation” are attributes which have been given to “Maya”, but it would seem helpful to understand the true etymological meaning of the term.

Wictionary to help you:
In Sanskrit, illusion; God's (Aup.: that is optional) physical and metaphysical creation (literally, "not this").
Mā = not, yā = this.
* Zwing is more of a linguist than us.

 

[Aupmanyav]

You said you want Evidence. Right? That's why.

You want me to believe first. What remains to know after I already believe (whatever BS it may be)?

 

[Aupmanyav]

I cannot agree. The truth of this must lie in the meaning of “Maya”. .. We should really have a true sense of what we are talking about.

Both of you are correct. Salix is an illusion. And also is not. Because behind each appearance, there is something. And that is Brahman, physical energy.
Mayā, mama, mine, is a different root altogether, not connected with 'Māyā'.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Fair enough. Is there anything in particular you would recommend to someone who would like to understand nondualism better?

Dsicuss it to your heart's content right in these forums. Better than any book, different views.