re: “Is non-duality actuality or a perceptual change due to neurological conditions in the brain? If non-duality is actuality, then what is the point of discussing illusions of self? What does it matter?”
There are two dualities. The psychological duality is perceptual, an illusory separation between the observer and the observed, thinker and thought, etc. If you, thought, actually look at thought, the separation isn’t there. It never was. The illusion is finished.
The other duality is the psychological phenomenon itself, the registration of sensation that becomes a sensation itself. It’s all thought and thought is duality.
re: “What does it matter?” Once the illusory psychological division is seen through, there’s no choice in the matter and it is extremely important to understand what you are.
When thought is interested in thought, what it is, what it is doing now, why it does what it does, who it thinks it is, etc., the separation between thought and thinker is questionable, but it doesn’t magically disappear.
Thought’s examination of itself (aka self-knowledge) is an ongoing process. It takes time to find out that time has more to do with thought than actuality because finding out requires patience, and patience doesn’t require thought.
There is no separation. The observer IS the observed. The observed IS the observer. The realisation is immediate and irrevocable. I don’t know WTF people are doing when they say that they observe the mind, but they’re not.
re: “I don’t know what people are doing when they say or imply that they’re free, unlimited, and selfless, when obviously, they are deceiving themselves.”
I agree. It’s a stupid claim. I really don’t know if they are deceiving themselves or just bullshitting.
What is non-division and division?
In non-division there is no division. Division thus has no relation to non-division.
In division there is separation, separate thinker, process of separation of thinker. It is will, choice as thinker. It is conditioned process.
What is non-division? It is totally natural, no conflict, not an action of thinker as choice.
Brain can function in division or non-division.
There are many things that function naturally without will. Your heart beats without will. Your growing older is without will. As it is without will, it functions on its own naturally. On its own means without choice of thinker. It functions on its own means it is without conflict. There is one and not two. Becoming older is natural process, so there is only one in it like trees changing colour as per season, it is one with the season.
So ultimately there is no division at all. This has an effect onthe brain, a brain without conflict, without thinker, without will as separation, just natural state of being
Why not use “wholeness” instead of “non-division”?
Division thus has no relation to non-division.
“Division” and “non-division” are concepts, and their relationship is as opposites.
So ultimately there is no division at all.
Division is a concept and concepts have their place in the the whole. So instead of over-simplifying, why not just say that there are two realms: the actual and the conceptual, and we can’t pretend that the conceptual does not exist when, without it, you wouldn’t have been able to write this over-simplified, confusing, explanation.
K said fragment can not have relationship with whole but whole can have relationship with fragment.
Does it mean for fragment whole is a concept so it can not have relationship with it but for whole there is nothing as fragment so question of relationship does not arise since for relationship duality is required.
As far as realm of actual and conceptual, conceptual world is real as long as one is caught in it just like everything in dream is real as long as dream is going on.
A simple answer is that a relationship with something that I don’t see or understand is not possible.
If I am entirely focussed on my chess match (fragmented view) I am not in relation to the stuff that might be around me.
Another chess buff watching me play, can relate to the game I am playing but they also can relate to the player - they see me too (less fragmented view)
It basically means fragment is unaware. What is fragment aware of? Fragment is aware only of word, which is itself. If I call you American or Russian and look at you through word, I am not aware of you but just the word which is my projection. If me looking a particular way go to a country where I look different then often they don’t look at me directly but through the ideas they have. So basically thought is unaware and fragmentary. Fragment has no relation with direct awareness. What is relation of whole to fragment? I am not sure there is any also. Whole is not interested if you are American or Russian. Whole is not interested in fragment, but there is no separation so there is relationship.
Relationship as connection, as equal, as being same in non-separation.
Yes. The fragmented brain chooses conception over perception, so it is selectively aware instead of choicelessly aware.
As far as realm of actual and conceptual, conceptual world is real as long as one is caught in it just like everything in dream is real as long as dream is going on.
Thought is the “conceptual world”, and thought is a real mechanical activity of the brain. So when the brain chooses to perceive conceptually rather than directly, it sees only what it chooses to think, what it chooses to believe about what it perceives.
