Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

SnooLemons2442 t1_j5gwv7s wrote

Reply to comment by Accomplished-Log-274 in /r/philosophy Open Discussion Thread | January 16, 2023 by BernardJOrtcutt

>Again, you cant have an experience without an experiencer, an observer without the observed, a tango without two. The self is real in this.

Right, this is typically what non - dualists try to claim is an illusion, but as argued above this seems false, in reality what is described is pre-reflective self-consciousness, not some self illusion.

1

Accomplished-Log-274 t1_j5gxd8f wrote

The illusion is real. But dig deep enough to the core and you encounter non dualism.

If you had to, how would you describe non dualism?

1

SnooLemons2442 t1_j5gxllg wrote

Ok, I'm not sure this conversation is going anywhere. I've continually argued it isn't an illusion but you don't seem to agree. We'll leave it at that.

1

Accomplished-Log-274 t1_j5gyivw wrote

Im just not sure you understand what non dualism is. I just want to help convey

1

SnooLemons2442 t1_j5gyszr wrote

I fully understand it, I used to actively partake in it & I've had various 'non dual' experiences. Since looking deeper into philosophy my opinions have changed though.

1

Accomplished-Log-274 t1_j5gz1xa wrote

If you would humor me with a definition in your own words?

1

SnooLemons2442 t1_j5h06kv wrote

Not sure, it's an extremely fuzzy term/concept which originates from various ancient Indian philosophies & religion, it may possess different definitions when utilised in different schools of thought. In general though, as hinted by the name it's simply the rejection/denial of duality.

1

Accomplished-Log-274 t1_j5h0qb3 wrote

Not two but one, not one but zero Thats as simple as ive found to explain it.

The two are the observer and observed The one is the non separate self (THE self) The zero is non dualism

1

Accomplished-Log-274 t1_j5gyt1x wrote

Real is illusory and the illusion is real, that splits both our points right down the middle. Can we find agreement in that common ground?

1