I guess I would ammend that to say the temporal and eternal aspects are the poles, non-duality would not be a pole. But, besides that semantic difference, I agree withthe overall illustration. In fact, my own conception is like inverted cones intersecting one another. At one end, the experience of the temporal dominates, at the other the eternal dominates, while most of us hover in the mid section. But, since we come up through the sphere of temporal domination, its more difficult to "turn the tables" and let the eternal aspect dominate.

-TC

Right. Non-duality is not a pole except in the sense that those who speak of non-duality as the elimination of poles, have simply turned the "experience" of the "other" pole (set against the temporal pole) into a non-pole . . . which it is not.

In other words, many of those who speak of the annihilation of duality, or polar thinking . . . have simply allowed the spiritual pole to have its legitimate authority over the temporal pole. This experience is so "other" than normal thinking that the mystic often imagines that the temporal pole has been annihilated (at least for that moment) . . . when in fact that pole is just as eternal as the spiritual pole.

Which is not to say that the "flesh" cannot be destroyed/transformed in such a way that it will never again be capable of rising up to usurp its appropriate place as the crown of the spirit rather than the spirt of the crown.


Dan

The Mistake made by many is we begin with the idea that everything is "outside of us"

Picture you are a glass of water called man

Oneness is simply to have the entire Universe poured into you

You do not lose "you"

You do not become one with all out there

it becomes ONE with YOU

Yes, Tony I agree. You are not in the world...the world is within you.

__________________
May your awareness be perfection

Here, the word "understood" is the culprit, slyly inserted where "believed" would make more sense. After all, we might as easily say that once it was "understood" that the Jews were Christ Killers, eaters of the blood of children, and usurious parasites who preyed on the suffering poor, well that would certainly change one's perspective, wouldn't it?

The idea that we should herd people into cattle cars and ship them off to be systematically murdered sounds weird -- until this essential truth about them is "understood." But because, in fact, this "essential truth" is false, it can not be "understood" at all, so much as it can be believed.

So yes, of course -- anything which may be "understood" (in the sense I've given of "believed") can certainly change one's attitude and perspective. And that, make no mistake, is precisely why a healthy measure of skepticism and critical thinking about unlikely claims is so very, very important. Your attitudes and perspectives -- and consequently those who may be impacted by them -- are at risk!

==================
Next up: is there any way to distinguish between experiences sensed by and experiences created by the brain?

__________________
evangelicalhumanist: Greek "eu"=good and "angelos"=messenger. Spreading the good news of Humanism.

I don't quite see how the quote from Viv's post relates to the holocaust, so I'm not quite buying the point that the word "belief" (which you interpret from the word "understood") is something that automatically infers something that is distructive or hateful. Doesn't everyone operate on belief and assumption?

Yes. Even when you base your thoughts on science you are assuming that it is correct. Everything is based on belief.

__________________
RevKathyV

http://www.myspace.com/divinelightinterfaith



www.divinelightinterfaithministry.com

I'm afraid I have to disagree with your assessment as well, EH. It would seem you have crossed different disciplines reflecting your own bias as opposed to an open objectivity. The Nazi use of having to "understand" is a moral assessment, not necessarily a spiritual one, and we can distinguish between an "in group versus out group" dynamic and higher moral ideals.

But, beyond that, understanding involves a willingness to take up the practice, to study what is claimed, not simply offer a criticism from afar or second-hand quotes from others who claim an air of authority on the matter despite their ignorance as well. Let me offer a quick example to illustrate how the search in different quadrants of interest value different methods of validation.

In a court system, eye-witness testimony is considered some of the most crucial evidence one can possess in determining the truth. To have a person identify the defendant as swear they were at fault is hard to discredit. In fact, defense attorneys will go out of their way to mention the lack of eye witnesses as an argument that the case is circumstantial. Yet, in science, eye-witness testimony is the worst kind of evidence you can have. For example, even if a scientist says, "I swear I saw a UFO." That scientist knows that his eyes are just as untrustworthy as any other witness, and that he needs physical and/or measurable evidence to strengthen his truth.

Both are searches for the truth, both have a relevance that is valued. Both have methods for determining the accuracy of that value. But, we can't really apply anything of measure to a search for truthfulness any more than we can provide a "swear upon my mother's grave" promise that the data used to validate a lab experiment was accurate.

So, its a bit unfair to say that the word "believe" had to be substituted for "understood", and if it is to be applied, its application is to the one who has yet or is unwilling to do the required work for understanding. Certainly, much in deeper consciousness studies has been dominated by religious traditions and is garbed in the cultural description of that tradition. But that doesn't mean the phenomenological experience isn't true or that it isn't accessible by those willing to undergo a course of study to understand it. Both Newton and Kepler described their theories in the religious cultural terms of the day. It took some time before the study of the phenomena themselves became neutral in its meaning. Certainly, scientists today do not think of the planets as gods simply from their name of reference. I imagine, in time, consciousness studies will also become more neutral to religion in their context, but we shouldn't condemn the study of such as a path back to mythic and fundamentalist thinking simply because it started there lest we do away with the whole of science as well.

-TC

It seems to me we have assumed something in this question. Does the brain create experience? We're pretty sure it accumulates and stores information, but how do we know the brain is responsible for the experience I see, feel, hear, and taste? As far as I know, we have not located the "seer" or the "hearer". We know the transmission of information, but the interpretation is a bit beyond our reach from a purely neurological standpoint.

Take blind spots. We all have them, and yet we rarely see them because "assumptions" are added to our interpretation. Does the brain have "expectation"? Expectation sounds like "will". And what about dreams? Why would a brain need to produce dreams? Obviously, our dreams do not require a sensory input, yet we can conceive plays of light, sound and color.

So, let me posit this scenario. Instead of assuming light, sound and color (dreams) are products of sensory stimulation, why not assume light, sound and color are a product of an aspect of consciousness that molds them to sensory inputs as they arise. So, when there are few sensations, we have visions not constrained by more physical description, but when focus is given to the sensory world, they (light, sound and color) adapt to the focus?

-TC

I can't have this conversation. As long as we are free to do two things:

1. Ignore everything that appears to be real (light and sound can be assumed not to be sensory, for example), and
2. Make any assumption that we feel like (assume light and sound are produced by consciousness), without any particular reason except that we fancy it, then

we can argue anything at all, including both that 0, 1 and 80 trillion angels can dance on the head of a pin. There is no end to any argument, there is no place to arrive, there is no means of having a discussion because, at the end of the day, we will not be using terms that the other even recognizes.

If every possible axiom can be assumed to be true without bothering to provide a reason for making that assumption, then every possible theorem can be proven both true and false, and also not to exist anyway, all at the same time.

I don't see any point in such discussions. And if that's the meaning of "spirituality," then I don't see any point in it, either.

__________________
evangelicalhumanist: Greek "eu"=good and "angelos"=messenger. Spreading the good news of Humanism.