Course Non Dualism: The metaphysics without a metaphysical problem

A Dialogue - Course Non Dualism: The metaphysics without a metaphysical problem

 

Student A:  'It would seem to me that the course is saying you need more than one to communicate. If you want to call that duality, that is your choice.'

Student B: 'The most obvious problem with any type of non dualism,  is by asserting God is all that real, then logically speaking there are :

1) No problems

or

2) No problems which are not God's problems.

As such and it should be clear, that if there is a "belief in individuality," then this belief must be God's beliefs or God's creation or God's miscreation.
After all, what sense does it make to say an illusionary individual which cannot and does not exist believes it is an individual and does exist?
If this is all emerging as Maya in the One Mind, then if it is a problem at all, it must be the problem of One Mind and not the problem of an imaginary, non-existent individual.

As such how does a teaching of Atonement as mental healing predicated on personal responsibility and free will apply to God, who one must assume establishes what is Reality and what is Maya?
God needs his mind healed? Since when?

But somehow an illusionary individual needs to some how to heal/Atone a non existent illusionary mind of a non existent individual?

I think what should be obvious is in most articulations of course non dualism, what one finds is a clumsy and dumb conflation of Atonement as prescriptive answer to a metaphysical problem based on the assumption of individuality and free will mixed up with a teaching of enlightenment where only God is real, and there is no problem, or if there is somehow a problem, then its God's problem.'

Student C: 'God's son exists as an extension.  I think Course students understand this.  Just like the comparison Jesus makes that we are sunbeams that THINK we are separate from the Sun.  I think that's pretty simple to understand.  Whether you believe this is called or dual or non-dual depends on what definition you choose from.'

Student B: 'That's right. The problem here is largely semantically. In other words, first and most obviously its a language problem.

People wish to argue multiple and very different definitions and meaning for the word symbol, "non dual," then wonder why its a free for all, chaotic mud slinging contest of vested interests.
Often people involved in New Age are oblivious that there is an academic discipline generally part of any university anywhere in the world, call philosophy and that for the last 100 or so years has been actively engaged in solving these types of problems of language.

Trust me. A problem of definition is a very simple language problem. Define your terms. Over time refine your initial definition. Then you may have the have a chance of saying something meaningful that might pass a college freshman English class without appealing to butterflies and rainbows.

Its weak thinking seeking a compromise of convenience without addressing the heart of the problem which is few in this exercise in Monkey Brain metaphysics want to define what they mean when they use the term, "non dualism."

As far as I'm concerned refusal to concisely define a term in an alleged philosophical discussion is like watching a bunch of squabbling people trying to wire a building for electricity without any license or qualification in electrical work and no knowledge of electricity other than it makes things works and can shock the hell out of you. Its hardly a surprise in such an endeavor nothing works and the building is smoldering and will soon burn down.

If [Course commentators in a "non-dualism' framework] would have done their due diligence in researching what is meant by non dualism, then the dumb assumption that all non dualism must somehow be Advaita Vendanta and therefore ACIM must be a type of Advaita Vendanta, would have not have been assumed --and whether Course metaphysics, as non dualism, is closer to Vishishtadvaita Vedanta would have been addressed.

Can you address this? Have you ever heard of Vishishtadvaita Vedanta? What about [those commentators] ? Hell no.

That's because people wish to use the term non dualism as a catch all, buzz term, without the slightest indication that the term has different meanings, connotations and has not one, but several schools of thought.

-
Non dualism in an Advaita sense doesn't make rational sense. In other words, you can't explain it, without the explanation contradicting itself in nearly every word.

Instead it makes sense, phenomenologically.  What does that mean?

It means when one closes eyes and examines the inner world, the mind-scape, then certain things can be allegedly known and articulated.

The essential notion is what is called "awareness," is what is constant, eternal, and irreducible. Its also assumed this awareness is Self and often this Self is "God."

As far as I can understand the various claims --communication is NOT a recognized, authentic and eternal part of what is being called here --"awareness."

Why is that? Because communication implies multiplicity of real beings, all with their own "awareness." As such multiplicity of beings each with awareness, contradicts or make uncertain the notion that the immediate phenomenological experience of "awareness" is in fact constant, eternal, irreducible and without source.

As such communication based on multiplicity of beings is rejected on the principle of "not two," which is the operative principle and methodology for distinguishing reality (awareness) from illusion (multiplicity or duality).

In One Mindedness, the inner mind scape is not simply awareness but awareness predicated on real, authentic communication between creator, brothers, and creations --all real beings.'