Guest guest Posted October 2, 2003 Report Share Posted October 2, 2003 why is it that sooner or later nondualism turns into another school of fundamentalism? is this something that every -ism is destined for? hur Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 2, 2003 Report Share Posted October 2, 2003 The second a name appears a box appears. That is just the way of " your world " . .. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 2, 2003 Report Share Posted October 2, 2003 Hur Guler <hur wrote: why is it that sooner or later nondualism turns into another school of fundamentalism? is this something that every -ism is destined for? Thanks for pointing this out, Hur. It was also a point in my critics related to Sandeep's vision of an holograhic universe. Seems to me that -isms, no matter what kind of them, tend to use science, sometimes a little more than phylosophy, to justify and explain themselves. Even religious or parareligious -isms, despite of their inherent insufficiency in explaining our reality (that's why they continue to exist), like to pick up here and there scientifical insights to explain and justify themselves as phenomenons at least, with a smell of an absolute truth. Our history is full of examplesan it is a little myopic, in my opinion. Science changes, I would say, nearly like moral ethics use to change. To base an holostic explanation of the universe with a pretension as ultimate (or nearly ultimate) truth is to build on sand. Fundamentalisms are always built on sand, no matter how deep the foundation walls were laid out. We will reach the same borders going in the non-dual direction as well as in the opposite direction. The relevance of a non-dual phylosophy lies in antagonizing the, in my opinion, also absurd view of a merely dual universe, a black and white universe, a digital vision of reality. Culture as an expanding tree of algorythms has brought us, more than a biological evolution, genetic mutations or changes, as species, to the point of asking us about the substantial framework which holds the collective and individual reality we conceive. Not founding a manifest and "tangible" explication and realizing that there is an enormous "universe" of non-linear phenomenas we began to question our capability to percieve reality as it seems to be. Could it be that our consciousness shows us only a part of it? Could it be that what we preceive is just a great staging with no inherent and tangible reality? A dream? Incertitude regarding the results of experiments always lead to rethink, reconsider the methods and if that doesn't help the experiment-performer must be questioned. That's why it is today in vogue to talk about consciousness. My point is, that if we can't state what consciousness really comprehends, every fundametalism is a complete absurdum. To construct a fundamentalism out of a non-dual phylosophy is as absurd as to make it out of an dual vision of the universe. Both are products of our consciousness and underlie the exact same incertitude and, in my opinion, it doesn't miss a certain point of ridicoulosness and futility, to look for justifications in science, even in exact sciences. Concentrating the whole statement of affairs a little more: fundamentalisms are ridiculous; dual vs non-dual is not the question; dual and non-dual complement each other; the big question remains: Can science find a linear or a non-linear explanation for consciousness? Are we intelligent enough to find it? and probably the most important question would be: Wherefore should we find it, if we already can find an answer in enlightenment or just reading for example Nisargadatta's scriptures. Perhaps nothing is never enough, we like to play. sk The New with improved product search Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 2, 2003 Report Share Posted October 2, 2003 >>>As long as there are words, thoughts, and individuality fundamentalism is perchance destined. If the individual is missing,to what could destiny cling? --- In Nisargadatta , " Hur Guler " <hur@n...> wrote: > why is it that sooner or later nondualism turns into another school > of fundamentalism? is this something that every -ism is destined for? > hur Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 3, 2003 Report Share Posted October 3, 2003 We are talking. Even if we seem to be talking about " non-dualism " , whatever that may be, we are still talking. (It's happening on the level of the mind.) How can the mind ever grasp which is free from every form, name and shape? The word " non-dualism " , is just another illusion. It's a trap. We can't understand it, which is fine and natural. > why is it that sooner or later nondualism turns into > another school > of fundamentalism? is this something that every -ism > is destined for? > hur The New with improved product search Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 3, 2003 Report Share Posted October 3, 2003 Nisargadatta , skogen <skoggman> wrote: Fundamentalisms are always built on sand, no matter how deep the foundation walls were laid out. We will reach the same borders going in the non-dual direction as well > as in the opposite direction. thank you all for the response and i particularly like this poetic line about building sand castles in the mind. hur Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 4, 2003 Report Share Posted October 4, 2003 Nisargadatta , Tansel Coskuner <just4teof> wrote: > We are talking. Even if we seem to be talking about > " non-dualism " , whatever that may be, we are still > talking. (It's happening on the level of the mind.) > How can the mind ever grasp which is free from every > form, name and shape? > > The word " non-dualism " , is just another illusion. It's > a trap. We can't understand it, which is fine and > natural. > ---------------- Yes. Let the talking be. Just be not deceived. .. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 5, 2003 Report Share Posted October 5, 2003 biggum words bout nuthin'. yup. rave on.el_wells_2004 <el_wells_2004 wrote: Nisargadatta , Tansel Coskuner <just4teof> wrote:> We are talking. Even if we seem to be talking about> "non-dualism", whatever that may be, we are still> talking. (It's happening on the level of the mind.)> How can the mind ever grasp which is free from every> form, name and shape?> > The word "non-dualism", is just another illusion. It's> a trap. We can't understand it, which is fine and> natural.> ----------------Yes.Let the talking be.Just be not deceived..**If you do not wish to receive individual emails, to change your subscription, sign in with your ID and go to Edit My Groups: /mygroups?edit=1Under the Message Delivery option, choose "No Email" for the Nisargadatta group and click on Save Changes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.