Is non-duality a philosophy?

why keep asking questions is my point, why not stop and look for yourself.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

onemoment, the problem with duality in med and psych is that it doesnt reflect reality.

For instance it seperates nero from psych which is great but what about the PHYSICAL effects of depression? The drop in seritonin and its effect on mood?

Or hypoxia?

or a brain tumor which effects behavor?

The evidence doesnt fit with duality

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Asguard, I don't understand what you are trying to point out to me - do you mean 'non-duality' when you write 'duality'?

All points of view are just that, points of view from a reference point, from a way of looking at things. All points of view require a language and a based in time and place - non-duality is talking about that timelessness that is always there and underlies all. It is contanstant and undeniable - you know you are present, no? No thought is required to know that 'you are'.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

no i MEAN duality, if something is seperate then why does seritonian levels (brain) effect mood (mind)?

duality has been debunked right there, there are 1000's of examples i could give you adiction, mental illness, nerological conditions, infections, cancer and more where the body effects the mind and there for DISPROVES duality

 

Asguard, if there is one thing (mind) that affect another thing (body) then that is duality - there is a division into parts of the whole (and I don't mean just the body/mind whole). Then you also have seritonin - another part. I do understand what you are saying though - you are saying that body and mind are not seen as separate from one another. What do they say about the you -Asguard- and the me- onemoment - are we separate? looks like we two are discussion very different things when we discuss 'duality'.

 

good question, kind of like my lecture discussing the biopsychosocial theory of health. As i stated in another thread her opinion is that there shouldnt be a psycho in there because its all either biological OR social or a combination. For instance if we take depression again the congnitive (psychological) thought pattens are compleatly influanced by the what you see and hear and experiance (socal) and genetic predispositions and seritonin levels (bio)

as i said the current theory is something like what your suggestion, somewhere in the middle between monoisum (1) and duality (2)

more like its 2 compleatly dependent systems like the cadiorespitry system i guess

 

All sounds rather complicated, no? Don't you think that the 'mind' will never find an answer that will bring it any peace of mind? Have you looked to see what is there without mind?

 

automation?

when you remove the cognative funtions of the brain you are left with the autonomic funtions like the respitory drive, kidney funtion ect

 

to which the non-dualist could retort "why talk of looking for one's self, when there is actually no self to speak of ... only a homogenized oneness that pervades the universe in which there is no disharmony, a oneness that cannot be indicated by speech because it is formless, primeval and all pervasive ......."

 

You are still using the mind there - you are labelling, postulating.

Isn't there an awareness of being there even when the mind is not labelling everything or theorizing something?

Are you a 'body-mind' seeing or are you the seeing that includes the 'body-mind'?

 

If there is a belief that there is a self, then this believed in self is made to look and when it looks there is seeing that there is no-one looking. The mind is used to eliminate the mind.

What do you have to say to that?

More postulation?

Do you dare look to see that there is no 'me,'that all 'me' is is mind?

 

No I don't say that at all .... but I do dare say that is where you are headed when you reference the nature of the absolute as

Yes, but in non-duality, you come to the understanding wordlessly - it is not something that words can agree or disagree with.

 

Isn't there an awareness of being there even when the mind is not labelling everything or theorizing something?

Are you a 'body-mind' seeing or are you the seeing that includes the 'body-mind'?

 

onemoment, im not sure what your talking about to be honest, are you talking about say someone who is meditating who is trying to think of nothing or are you talking about someone in say a PVS who HAS no cognative funtion period and yet keeps there basic bodly funtions running

if the first you still not turning off the cognative even when trying to think of nothing, if the second you need to talk to a religious person, i deal in science and science says (quite clearly) that there IS no cognative funtion, no "me" left.

Futher more i can tell you that when i was knocked out there was no "me" either for that time

on a side note this isnt correct for sleep (at least REM sleep) because dreams are a cognative funtion

 

Both and neither. What I am saying is that seeing what we are does not require any analysis and we can only know if this is true or not unless we look without 'analysis' at what it is that we are. That means we do not use words, though words do obviously appear in what we are.

 

if there was no necessity for words, you would not have even started the opening post of this thread.

 

Lightgigantic - Words just happen, expression just happens- the words in non-duality point to the wordless, that is all I wanted to say.

 

the moment you touch the keyboard you defy your conclusion

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Lightgigantic, I don't understand how I defy my conclusion.

 

If you point to something, it is still seperate.