From: oldernow@dev.null   
      
   On 2024-04-23, D  wrote:   
      
   >> The idea that I believe is alluded to by non-dualist points   
   >> of view is that the notions of self and other(-than-self,   
   >> which includes impersonal "other" like "the world") appear   
   >> part and parcel. In other words, as soon as any notion   
   >> implying separation from the ineffable underlying reality   
   >> is conceived, all the rest follows - or "magically appears"   
   >> - as supporting conceptuality, because no concept stands   
   >> utterly alone: they're mutually inter-defined.   
   >>   
   >> So, yes, of course it takes notions of self and other   
   >> to organize a mammoth hunt once the notion of "the world"   
   >> containing selves, others, and mammoths is accepted as a given,   
   >> as "reality". What I refer to as absence of (the notion of)   
   >> self actually refers to the absence of notionality altogether,   
   >> sometimes described as a serene, peaceful awareness sans the   
   >> madness of insisting that awareness be discriminated into   
   >> an endless series/collection of separate notions declared   
   >> to be "reality". The peace/serenity of raw, undifferentiated   
   >> awareness winds up replaced with a representational reality   
   >> that we try - as selves believing in ourselves and all the   
   >> supporting conceptuality - really hard to consider "real   
   >> reality". But it seems to me (read: "me" in the context of   
   >> this message) the ensuing mostly peaceless madness thereof   
   >> screams something about it necessarily goes horribly wrong.   
   >>   
   >> But, as usual, attempting to describe what can't be   
   >> described quickly feels unsatisfying in the context of   
   >> believing in one's self, in "the world", and all the rest   
   >> of the supporting purely conceptual cast.   
   >   
   > Also don't mix levels. The self is an excellent tool   
   > for surviving in the material universe. If you want to   
   > go "beyond" and discuss transcending and those kind of   
   > experiences, that's when this might (depending on your   
   > philosophical position) hit you in the face. =)   
      
   Yes! "Mixing levels" was what I feared most in failing to   
   be clear. But, like I said, it's a tough topic, because   
   not realizing there might be more than one conceptual   
   level the verbiage might be applied to makes it impossible   
   to understand.   
      
   --   
   oldernow   
   xyz001 at nym.hush.com   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)