Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[JackDaydream]

For a couple of years, after reading Huston Smith's 'Forgotten Truth: The Common View of the World's Religions' (1976), I have begun to think that the division between theism and atheism is anything but a black and white discussion. This does not come down to agnosticism. Huston argues that both theism and atheism are partial truths, with atheism being a way of thinking through the limitations of the anthromorphic ideas and images of 'God'.

One way of seeing beyond theism and atheism is in Buddhism, which focuses upon consciousness. There is a fair amount of interest in the links between consciousness and neuroscience within Buddhist thought. However, there is also an underlying idea of 'non-duality', which may be a perennial aspect within many worldviews. I have experienced some difficulties in understanding the idea but I have found a book recently which I am finding useful, so I am sharing it for critical reflection.

It is, 'The Supreme Self: The Way to Enlightenment', by Swami Abhayanda (2006), which is a spiritual autobiography and expounds the philosophy of non-dualism. It is hard to summarise a book which draws upon many traditions, including Hinduism, Buddhism, the Judaeo-Christian tradition, Buddhism and Taoism. I will simply give a few ideas as a starting point for discussion.

Abhayanda speaks of how, in spite of an emphasis on 'Divine Consciousness', the Jewish Patriarch's story of creation involved , 'the Divine Self inherent in man' as 'a Separate being, a god standing apart from His creatures as a vengeful and tyrannical overlord'. The author draws upon various religious perspectives, including Hinduism, and his own experience of 'enlightenment', which,
'revealed that I am, by extension, everyone is, the One Soul of the universe. The slightest movement of the mind would initiate the recreation of duality; but held singly on its concentrated focus the mind remains immersed in the Eternal Raised Consciousness. I saw that all creation is one coordinated whole, that every grain of sand is in perfect harmony with the coordinated unfolding of the universe. My physical existence was then seen to have no separate identity, but was part of a unified continuum of creative energy. '
His general perspective is one of interconnectedness and the idea of 'God' as consciousness itself.

I wonder to what extent such a non-dualistic viewpoint offers a solution to the split between materialism and idealism, as well as between atheism and theism. I am aware that there have been so many threads on the topics on the forum. Also, there are various philosophical positions, including substance dualism and deism, so the debate is far from simple. So, here, in raising this thread discussion, I am focusing on the idea of non-dualism and the asking whether it is in helpful in thinking, especially as a way of bridging the dichotomy of theism vs atheism?

[JackDaydream]

My title should read 'as an alternative to Alternative to Theism and Atheism', rather than in an Alternative to..'. I am not sure if the question works as a sentence with the typo, and I am unable to edit, and don't wish to bother moderators.

I would also add that my topic area is related to the general question: is atheism linked to materialism/physicalism and theism to idealism? Or, is this too simplistic?

[Pattern-chaser]

...I saw that all creation is one coordinated whole, that every grain of sand is in perfect harmony with the coordinated unfolding of the universe. My physical existence was then seen to have no separate identity, but was part of a unified continuum of creative energy. '
His general perspective is one of interconnectedness and the idea of 'God' as consciousness itself.

...

So, here, in raising this thread discussion, I am focusing on the idea of non-dualism and the asking whether it is in helpful in thinking, especially as a way of bridging the dichotomy of theism vs atheism?

The perspective that all is One, that everything is connected, and part of one whole, shows almost everything else in a very different light. I find it helpful in my thinking, yes. I wonder if this perspective is the same thing as "non-dualism" though? The two are clearly related, but are they the same thing? To me, the 'one is all; all is one' perspective of universal connection is the primary enlightenment, and non-dualism just seems to follow from it, like an inevitable accident.

So, theism vs. atheism? Hmm. Many people would see that as belief vs. non-belief, but I think we here on this forum see a bit more depth in the discussion than that? In the light of Universal Connectedness, it seems that if there is a God, She is part of everything just as all things are. The idea of an external God, operating from outside Everything That Exists, looks like nonsense.

In fact, in the spirit of non-dualism, it is impossible for God to be separate and distinct from everything else, just as it is impossible for anyone or anything else to be distinct in that way. In fact, is it not misleading (and wrong!) to consider God and Her Universe as a pair, a dualism? God is part of the whole, just like everything else. Already, the distinction between theism and atheism is shrinking...

If the scientifically-described 'universe' is the body, then God is its soul or spirit, maybe its mind? [These two are one, of course. ] This offers us a perspective. If we adopt this perspective, we can see God there, quite clearly. If we don't adopt it, then God is not visible to us. But She, such as She is, is still there. We either see Her, or we don't. And so theism and atheism are just a matter of how we choose to look at things. And the distinction between the two is ... not obvious.

[JackDaydream]

...I saw that all creation is one coordinated whole, that every grain of sand is in perfect harmony with the coordinated unfolding of the universe. My physical existence was then seen to have no separate identity, but was part of a unified continuum of creative energy. '
His general perspective is one of interconnectedness and the idea of 'God' as consciousness itself.

...

So, here, in raising this thread discussion, I am focusing on the idea of non-dualism and the asking whether it is in helpful in thinking, especially as a way of bridging the dichotomy of theism vs atheism?

The perspective that all is One, that everything is connected, and part of one whole, shows almost everything else in a very different light. I find it helpful in my thinking, yes. I wonder if this perspective is the same thing as "non-dualism" though? The two are clearly related, but are they the same thing? To me, the 'one is all; all is one' perspective of universal connection is the primary enlightenment, and non-dualism just seems to follow from it, like an inevitable accident.

So, theism vs. atheism? Hmm. Many people would see that as belief vs. non-belief, but I think we here on this forum see a bit more depth in the discussion than that? In the light of Universal Connectedness, it seems that if there is a God, She is part of everything just as all things are. The idea of an external God, operating from outside Everything That Exists, looks like nonsense.

In fact, in the spirit of non-dualism, it is impossible for God to be separate and distinct from everything else, just as it is impossible for anyone or anything else to be distinct in that way. In fact, is it not misleading (and wrong!) to consider God and Her Universe as a pair, a dualism? God is part of the whole, just like everything else. Already, the distinction between theism and atheism is shrinking...

If the scientifically-described 'universe' is the body, then God is its soul or spirit, maybe its mind? [These two are one, of course. ] This offers us a perspective. If we adopt this perspective, we can see God there, quite clearly. If we don't adopt it, then God is not visible to us. But She, such as She is, is still there. We either see Her, or we don't. And so theism and atheism are just a matter of how we choose to look at things. And the distinction between the two is ... not obvious.

I am glad that you can appreciate the idea of non-duality, because it is a fairly difficult one, as it involves holding both sides, with awareness of partiality. It reminds me of the title of the Waterboys' song, 'The Whole of the Moon'. It may be a struggle to hold onto both opposites, such as both the yin and yang, in the unity of the Tao.

As far as belief in God, or absence, many do see it as a clear cut dichotomy, with the position of agnosticism as the middle territory. However, I do find that it may be about different ways of seeing rather than logical arguments, or both sides of the argument. Richard Rorty spoke of the difference in meanings of the theist and atheist:
'An inspired theist, let us say, is one who "just knows" that there are supernatural beings which play certain explanatory roles in accounting for natural phenomena....Inspired theists have inherited their picture of the universe as divided into two great ontological realms_ the supernatural and the natural_ along with their language. The way they talk about things is inextricably tied up with_ or at least strikes them inextricably tied up with the divine...The atheists view these these theists as having too many words in their language and too many meanings to bother about. Enthusiastic atheists explain to inspired theists that inspired theists "all there really is..."...The philosophers on both sides may analyse meanings until they are blue in the face...'
So, he is arguing that it is about different ways of seeing.

Spinoza's perspective is also relevant, although I find his writings extremely difficult to read. Having come from a Jewish background he challenged the idea of a transcendent God. He equated God and nature. His thinking can be interpreted in two ways though. Some have seen it as a source of non-dualism in materialism itself. Others have seen it the other way round, as meaning that God is within all nature, as the divine.

[Samana Johann]

For a couple of years, after reading Huston Smith's 'Forgotten Truth: The Common View of the World's Religions' (1976), I have begun to think that the division between theism and atheism is anything but a black and white discussion. This does not come down to agnosticism. Huston argues that both theism and atheism are partial truths, with atheism being a way of thinking through the limitations of the anthromorphic ideas and images of 'God'.

One way of seeing beyond theism and atheism is in Buddhism, which focuses upon consciousness. There is a fair amount of interest in the links between consciousness and neuroscience within Buddhist thought. However, there is also an underlying idea of 'non-duality', which may be a perennial aspect within many worldviews. I have experienced some difficulties in understanding the idea but I have found a book recently which I am finding useful, so I am sharing it for critical reflection.

It is, 'The Supreme Self: The Way to Enlightenment', by Swami Abhayanda (2006), which is a spiritual autobiography and expounds the philosophy of non-dualism. It is hard to summarise a book which draws upon many traditions, including Hinduism, Buddhism, the Judaeo-Christian tradition, Buddhism and Taoism. I will simply give a few ideas as a starting point for discussion.

Abhayanda speaks of how, in spite of an emphasis on 'Divine Consciousness', the Jewish Patriarch's story of creation involved , 'the Divine Self inherent in man' as 'a Separate being, a god standing apart from His creatures as a vengeful and tyrannical overlord'. The author draws upon various religious perspectives, including Hinduism, and his own experience of 'enlightenment', which,
'revealed that I am, by extension, everyone is, the One Soul of the universe. The slightest movement of the mind would initiate the recreation of duality; but held singly on its concentrated focus the mind remains immersed in the Eternal Raised Consciousness. I saw that all creation is one coordinated whole, that every grain of sand is in perfect harmony with the coordinated unfolding of the universe. My physical existence was then seen to have no separate identity, but was part of a unified continuum of creative energy. '
His general perspective is one of interconnectedness and the idea of 'God' as consciousness itself.

I wonder to what extent such a non-dualistic viewpoint offers a solution to the split between materialism and idealism, as well as between atheism and theism. I am aware that there have been so many threads on the topics on the forum. Also, there are various philosophical positions, including substance dualism and deism, so the debate is far from simple. So, here, in raising this thread discussion, I am focusing on the idea of non-dualism and the asking whether it is in helpful in thinking, especially as a way of bridging the dichotomy of theism vs atheism?

The eye not taking on form, ear... sound, the nose not taking on smell... body... bodily touch and at least, mind not taking on ideas. Less are those who would take on the task of disenchantment with all conditional things. Philosophy tries by nature to stay at all of them, philosophers aren't willing for sacrifices, want it all, all the pain, good householder. It requires honest idealism and follow a certain tiny path of practice.

[JackDaydream]

For a couple of years, after reading Huston Smith's 'Forgotten Truth: The Common View of the World's Religions' (1976), I have begun to think that the division between theism and atheism is anything but a black and white discussion. This does not come down to agnosticism. Huston argues that both theism and atheism are partial truths, with atheism being a way of thinking through the limitations of the anthromorphic ideas and images of 'God'.

One way of seeing beyond theism and atheism is in Buddhism, which focuses upon consciousness. There is a fair amount of interest in the links between consciousness and neuroscience within Buddhist thought. However, there is also an underlying idea of 'non-duality', which may be a perennial aspect within many worldviews. I have experienced some difficulties in understanding the idea but I have found a book recently which I am finding useful, so I am sharing it for critical reflection.

It is, 'The Supreme Self: The Way to Enlightenment', by Swami Abhayanda (2006), which is a spiritual autobiography and expounds the philosophy of non-dualism. It is hard to summarise a book which draws upon many traditions, including Hinduism, Buddhism, the Judaeo-Christian tradition, Buddhism and Taoism. I will simply give a few ideas as a starting point for discussion.

Abhayanda speaks of how, in spite of an emphasis on 'Divine Consciousness', the Jewish Patriarch's story of creation involved , 'the Divine Self inherent in man' as 'a Separate being, a god standing apart from His creatures as a vengeful and tyrannical overlord'. The author draws upon various religious perspectives, including Hinduism, and his own experience of 'enlightenment', which,
'revealed that I am, by extension, everyone is, the One Soul of the universe. The slightest movement of the mind would initiate the recreation of duality; but held singly on its concentrated focus the mind remains immersed in the Eternal Raised Consciousness. I saw that all creation is one coordinated whole, that every grain of sand is in perfect harmony with the coordinated unfolding of the universe. My physical existence was then seen to have no separate identity, but was part of a unified continuum of creative energy. '
His general perspective is one of interconnectedness and the idea of 'God' as consciousness itself.

I wonder to what extent such a non-dualistic viewpoint offers a solution to the split between materialism and idealism, as well as between atheism and theism. I am aware that there have been so many threads on the topics on the forum. Also, there are various philosophical positions, including substance dualism and deism, so the debate is far from simple. So, here, in raising this thread discussion, I am focusing on the idea of non-dualism and the asking whether it is in helpful in thinking, especially as a way of bridging the dichotomy of theism vs atheism?

The eye not taking on form, ear... sound, the nose not taking on smell... body... bodily touch and at least, mind not taking on ideas. Less are those who would take on the task of disenchantment with all conditional things. Philosophy tries by nature to stay at all of them, philosophers aren't willing for sacrifices, want it all, all the pain, good householder. It requires honest idealism and follow a certain tiny path of practice.

What is probably important about Abhaysnda's book is that it occurs in the context of thinking about the nature of enlightenment rather than analytical philosophy. The sense of oneness, especially between self and the consciousness underlying the universe is as a revelation as a basis for inspired living.

[Samana Johann]

For a couple of years, after reading Huston Smith's 'Forgotten Truth: The Common View of the World's Religions' (1976), I have begun to think that the division between theism and atheism is anything but a black and white discussion. This does not come down to agnosticism. Huston argues that both theism and atheism are partial truths, with atheism being a way of thinking through the limitations of the anthromorphic ideas and images of 'God'.

One way of seeing beyond theism and atheism is in Buddhism, which focuses upon consciousness. There is a fair amount of interest in the links between consciousness and neuroscience within Buddhist thought. However, there is also an underlying idea of 'non-duality', which may be a perennial aspect within many worldviews. I have experienced some difficulties in understanding the idea but I have found a book recently which I am finding useful, so I am sharing it for critical reflection.

It is, 'The Supreme Self: The Way to Enlightenment', by Swami Abhayanda (2006), which is a spiritual autobiography and expounds the philosophy of non-dualism. It is hard to summarise a book which draws upon many traditions, including Hinduism, Buddhism, the Judaeo-Christian tradition, Buddhism and Taoism. I will simply give a few ideas as a starting point for discussion.

Abhayanda speaks of how, in spite of an emphasis on 'Divine Consciousness', the Jewish Patriarch's story of creation involved , 'the Divine Self inherent in man' as 'a Separate being, a god standing apart from His creatures as a vengeful and tyrannical overlord'. The author draws upon various religious perspectives, including Hinduism, and his own experience of 'enlightenment', which,
'revealed that I am, by extension, everyone is, the One Soul of the universe. The slightest movement of the mind would initiate the recreation of duality; but held singly on its concentrated focus the mind remains immersed in the Eternal Raised Consciousness. I saw that all creation is one coordinated whole, that every grain of sand is in perfect harmony with the coordinated unfolding of the universe. My physical existence was then seen to have no separate identity, but was part of a unified continuum of creative energy. '
His general perspective is one of interconnectedness and the idea of 'God' as consciousness itself.

I wonder to what extent such a non-dualistic viewpoint offers a solution to the split between materialism and idealism, as well as between atheism and theism. I am aware that there have been so many threads on the topics on the forum. Also, there are various philosophical positions, including substance dualism and deism, so the debate is far from simple. So, here, in raising this thread discussion, I am focusing on the idea of non-dualism and the asking whether it is in helpful in thinking, especially as a way of bridging the dichotomy of theism vs atheism?

The eye not taking on form, ear... sound, the nose not taking on smell... body... bodily touch and at least, mind not taking on ideas. Less are those who would take on the task of disenchantment with all conditional things. Philosophy tries by nature to stay at all of them, philosophers aren't willing for sacrifices, want it all, all the pain, good householder. It requires honest idealism and follow a certain tiny path of practice.

What is probably important about Abhaysnda's book is that it occurs in the context of thinking about the nature of enlightenment rather than analytical philosophy. The sense of oneness, especially between self and the consciousness underlying the universe is as a revelation as a basis for inspired living.

Yes, to eat and consume on one has to find ways to deny obligations and debt... It's a total nonsensical idea and very harmful. Yet popular. Just see the runner of this forum. No fears in wrongdoing, no fears that nobody will solve the debts for them. Living depends on food. And your are food for others either. Why not seeking a way out of desire and illusion, good householder. Denying cause and effect doesn't solve the underlying issue of suffering, it just makes it more worse. Once consumed of all merits, as the desires after sensuality and becoming are not solved, the turn goes on at the lowest level: "food-source for others".

[JackDaydream]

For a couple of years, after reading Huston Smith's 'Forgotten Truth: The Common View of the World's Religions' (1976), I have begun to think that the division between theism and atheism is anything but a black and white discussion. This does not come down to agnosticism. Huston argues that both theism and atheism are partial truths, with atheism being a way of thinking through the limitations of the anthromorphic ideas and images of 'God'.

One way of seeing beyond theism and atheism is in Buddhism, which focuses upon consciousness. There is a fair amount of interest in the links between consciousness and neuroscience within Buddhist thought. However, there is also an underlying idea of 'non-duality', which may be a perennial aspect within many worldviews. I have experienced some difficulties in understanding the idea but I have found a book recently which I am finding useful, so I am sharing it for critical reflection.

It is, 'The Supreme Self: The Way to Enlightenment', by Swami Abhayanda (2006), which is a spiritual autobiography and expounds the philosophy of non-dualism. It is hard to summarise a book which draws upon many traditions, including Hinduism, Buddhism, the Judaeo-Christian tradition, Buddhism and Taoism. I will simply give a few ideas as a starting point for discussion.

Abhayanda speaks of how, in spite of an emphasis on 'Divine Consciousness', the Jewish Patriarch's story of creation involved , 'the Divine Self inherent in man' as 'a Separate being, a god standing apart from His creatures as a vengeful and tyrannical overlord'. The author draws upon various religious perspectives, including Hinduism, and his own experience of 'enlightenment', which,
'revealed that I am, by extension, everyone is, the One Soul of the universe. The slightest movement of the mind would initiate the recreation of duality; but held singly on its concentrated focus the mind remains immersed in the Eternal Raised Consciousness. I saw that all creation is one coordinated whole, that every grain of sand is in perfect harmony with the coordinated unfolding of the universe. My physical existence was then seen to have no separate identity, but was part of a unified continuum of creative energy. '
His general perspective is one of interconnectedness and the idea of 'God' as consciousness itself.

I wonder to what extent such a non-dualistic viewpoint offers a solution to the split between materialism and idealism, as well as between atheism and theism. I am aware that there have been so many threads on the topics on the forum. Also, there are various philosophical positions, including substance dualism and deism, so the debate is far from simple. So, here, in raising this thread discussion, I am focusing on the idea of non-dualism and the asking whether it is in helpful in thinking, especially as a way of bridging the dichotomy of theism vs atheism?

The eye not taking on form, ear... sound, the nose not taking on smell... body... bodily touch and at least, mind not taking on ideas. Less are those who would take on the task of disenchantment with all conditional things. Philosophy tries by nature to stay at all of them, philosophers aren't willing for sacrifices, want it all, all the pain, good householder. It requires honest idealism and follow a certain tiny path of practice.

What is probably important about Abhaysnda's book is that it occurs in the context of thinking about the nature of enlightenment rather than analytical philosophy. The sense of oneness, especially between self and the consciousness underlying the universe is as a revelation as a basis for inspired living.

Yes, to eat and consume on one has to find ways to deny obligations and debt... It's a total nonsensical idea and very harmful. Yet popular. Just see the runner of this forum. No fears in wrongdoing, no fears that nobody will solve the debts for them. Living depends on food. And your are food for others either. Why not seeking a way out of desire and illusion, good householder. Denying cause and effect doesn't solve the underlying issue of suffering, it just makes it more worse. Once consumed of all merits, as the desires after sensuality and becoming are not solved, the turn goes on at the lowest level: "food-source for others".

Suffering is a major aspect of the search for both pleasure and enlightenment, body and mind as the most essential experience of duality. Food, and the need for it shows how both mind and body are joined. Maslow shows the need for physiological needs to be met as a starting point for the higher needs. The absence of food makes it hard not to forget the body in the nature of embodied experience.

As for 'enlightenment', it has become incorporated into psychology practice, including the idea of mindfulness. The approach of mindfulness incorporates the body as awareness of the senses, but it can go further, in awareness of thought, as a meditation practice.

The trouble for many people though, myself included, is that spiritual searching is adapted in the context of urban life. It is so different from those who did it under the guidance of a guru. However, even that can be problematic as Ahbayasanda describes how he followed Ram Dass and was rather shocked by discovering that Ram Dass had a dark side, in his affairs with women. So, like in Western religion, the temptations of the body can interfere with the highest aspirations of the spirit.

[Pattern-chaser]

I am glad that you can appreciate the idea of non-duality, because it is a fairly difficult one, as it involves holding both sides, with awareness of partiality. It reminds me of the title of the Waterboys' song, 'The Whole of the Moon'. It may be a struggle to hold onto both opposites, such as both the yin and yang, in the unity of the Tao.

I find it helpful to remind myself (at least once a day! ) that there are few opposites in the world, or even none at all. They are not opposites but complements, like yin and yang. Neither can exist without the other; they each give the other term meaning. It is also often the case that the extremes — ultimate yin or ultimate yang — rarely if ever exist in isolation in the real world. They come together — in various proportions, perhaps — as a complementary pair.

[JackDaydream]

I am glad that you can appreciate the idea of non-duality, because it is a fairly difficult one, as it involves holding both sides, with awareness of partiality. It reminds me of the title of the Waterboys' song, 'The Whole of the Moon'. It may be a struggle to hold onto both opposites, such as both the yin and yang, in the unity of the Tao.

I find it helpful to remind myself (at least once a day! ) that there are few opposites in the world, or even none at all. They are not opposites but complements, like yin and yang. Neither can exist without the other; they each give the other term meaning. It is also often the case that the extremes — ultimate yin or ultimate yang — rarely if ever exist in isolation in the real world. They come together — in various proportions, perhaps — as a complementary pair.

Complementary pairs is an important part of life, or as it is constructed in the human thinking. The Greek thinker, Heraclitus, spoke of the concept of enantiodroma, which is how when one opposite is reached, there is a likely swing to the other opposite. Of course, as well as opposites, there are continuums .

Ahabayanda's main argument though is about consciousness though, especially the relationship between the self and the eternal underlying source of consciousness'. This is expressed in the relationship between God and the human, in many religious worldviews. He sees this as the relationship between the Father and Son, realised by Jesus Christ, meaning, potentially that all human beings are sons and daughters of God.

It could be argued that this particular form of non-dualism is more along the lines of theism and idealism. However, t it is possible to see the relationship as being between individual self and nature, without calling it God. Apart from Spinoza, Hegel saw spirit as imminent in history and Schopenhauer saw Kant's,'thing in itself ',or the numinous as in human experience itself. So, it is not necessary to speak of God to have numinous experiences or 'enlightenment'.

[Pattern-chaser]

Complementary pairs is an important part of life, or as it is constructed in the human thinking. The Greek thinker, Heraclitus, spoke of the concept of enantiodroma, which is how when one opposite is reached, there is a likely swing to the other opposite. Of course, as well as opposites, there are continuums .

Ah yes, continuums; being 'on the spectrum'. This is a step we often partly-take — recognising a spectrum as a line, not just two points, when it might stretch across a plane, or throughout a volume, or even more dimensions than that. Non-dualism is fun, yes?

[JackDaydream]

Complementary pairs is an important part of life, or as it is constructed in the human thinking. The Greek thinker, Heraclitus, spoke of the concept of enantiodroma, which is how when one opposite is reached, there is a likely swing to the other opposite. Of course, as well as opposites, there are continuums .

Ah yes, continuums; being 'on the spectrum'. This is a step we often partly-take — recognising a spectrum as a line, not just two points, when it might stretch across a plane, or throughout a volume, or even more dimensions than that. Non-dualism is fun, yes?

I find non-dualism to be fun and wonder why it is not embraced more, especially in thinking of the philosophy of consciousness. It goes back to the Stoics and various forms of ancient philosophy. It is probably as a result of Christendom that many people have got locked into the theist/atheist positions. It allows one to see God as 'being' rather than as a being.

One book on non-dualism which I have just discovered is ' the I: essence of ALL THAT IS' by Adam Dave(2022). He says,
'We come into the world as pure Awareness. The simple feeling of Being is all that we are, all that is. I AM precails; not I am this or that.'
He argues that the ego as a construct gets in the way. He also suggests,
You are not your mind. A lifetime of thinking has convinced you that your thoughts are you. The thinker disappears with the absence of thoughts. This is because the thinker is merely a thought. You are Awareness of thought. '

Of course, switching off thought is difficult, as most people who meditate find. Also, even with awareness of being beyond ego, it is questionable how one can actually switch off the ego because the narrative development of self is bound up with personal identity and its many facets.

[Pattern-chaser]

That doesn't look a lot like non-dualism, but it does look like fun. I'll look out for Dave's book. It seems to be on the right track...

To me, non-dualism centres on the 'all is one' perspective...

[JackDaydream]

That doesn't look a lot like non-dualism, but it does look like fun. I'll look out for Dave's book. It seems to be on the right track...

To me, non-dualism centres on the 'all is one' perspective...

Non-dualism may come in varying forms. The idea of 'all is one'' may embrace both materialism and spiritual perspectives. It is a rather ambiguous way of seeing and, in this way, it may be the basis of phenomenology.

[Pattern-chaser]

Non-dualism may come in varying forms. The idea of 'all is one'' may embrace both materialism and spiritual perspectives. It is a rather ambiguous way of seeing and, in this way, it may be the basis of phenomenology.

The idea of 'all is one' definitely embraces material and spiritual aspects; it embraces *everything*, after all.

But is it "ambiguous? I'm not sure. Can you describe this ambiguity, as it isn't obvious to me?