Dancing with Madhya Nandi 2 Bruce: As Sri Ramana might have put it, such semantic distinctions are surely "for scholars." Madhya: Now, Bruce, my sensors are detecting a reductionism coming on. Are you going to claim that it is meaningless to speak in any way about experience at all because, a) all experience of an 'absolute' nature is ontologically 'equal' or 'the same?' and, b) thereby claim that all discourse regarding the absolute is valueless since it is 'absolutely' different from the experience itself? Bruce: No, I'm not -- what I'm saying is that discourse, because of the nature of language itself, cannot be directly descriptive -- and there are myriad communicative choices possible in what such discourse actually is: a "pointing" toward the indescribable. Madhya: So, in order to deal with any and all viewpoints and expressions different from one's own, one need only negate the very possibility of discourse being at all relevant. Then one need never deal with any difference of view by reducing all possible discourse to "semanticism" or, in this case, nonsense. Bruce: No, but very elaborate inference noted. --- Bruce: I have every confidence that the perceptual states of Sri Ramana and Gautama Buddha were identical in essence. Madhya: Despite your worthy confidence, Bruce, how can you possibly justify making such a claim? It is clearly invalid, since no possibility exists for verification. And first, you must successfully account for your implied assumption that 'all possible enlightened states are identical.' Please explain how this can be so...? Bruce: I can't, it is inexplicable. --- Bruce: Let us not confuse characterization -- yet another communicative preference -- for substantive difference in consciousness itself. Madhya: Again, Bruce, you rely on psychologism: All talk about experience is absolutely incapable of saying anything 'real' about that experience and as such, is nothing more than 'characterization' or, 'communicative preference.' Bruce, this is not valid reasoning. Bruce: It is not based on reasoning, so from your chosen framework you couldn't be more correct. --- Bruce: To dispense with this in the most universal manner I can muster, "interpretation" is yet another instance of communicative preference. To find the commonalty that underlies such apparent differences, it surely behooves us to see through to the authentic resonance between and behind what are, after all, merely words. Madhya: Bruce, your argument does not hold water. Bruce: As an "argument" it is as leaky as a cheesecloth dinghy. Once again you are correct. Madhya: IF one presumes that Unmanifest Reality is absolutely different from Manifest Reality, then one might be correct in asserting a substantive, ontological difference between one 'True' reality and another, 'False' reality. Bruce: Where is this "one" you are arguing with? Certainly not here, I assure you! Madhya: Then, one might successfully argue that words are absolutely 'different' from the 'true' reality. But first, one must successfully account for the proposed ontological difference between the assertion of two entirely 'different' forms of reality--one Real and the other Not Real. Bruce: If one is in an undergraduate rhetoric class, I suppose so. Where have I supposedly hinted at "real" and "not real?" Madhya: So, to your apparent chagrin, and the chagrin of many on this list, I have expressed another viewpoint. That perspective states that no ontological difference exists between manifest and unmanifest Reality. Bruce: I have no disagreement with that expression, it is accurate and quite eloquent. Madhya: All reality is Real. Bruce: A truism, but true. :-) Madhya: Words are not 'false' forms of some other Reality. They are true, dynamic expressions of the Real. Bruce: In other words they are real "words," another truism. Madhya: This does not mean that all words have equal proportion, value or weight. Bruce: Words are just words -- all "proportion, value or weight" is in the eye of the beholder. Madhya: In fact, this is partly the point. Bruce: This getting too muddy to follow. Madhya: Absolute Reality is absolutely Creative. Therefore, any accounting for enlightened experience must also account for the creative dynamicity of Enlightened Reality. From my perspective--and I have never stated my view as other than my own perspective--one cannot separate the creative Performance, including speaking, acting, et cetera, from the experience of Enlightenment. Bruce: In non-dual terms nothing whatsoever is separable, there is only the seamless whole. --- Bruce: View noted -- and undoubtedly correct for one without an innate propensity for jnana. Madhya: An innate propensity, Bruce? Are you saying that I am jnana-challenged? Bruce: Apparently, and you are in the vast majority imo. Madhya: Is this condition genetic, environmental or perhaps, biological? Bruce: I don't know. Madhya: More importantly, you are making quite a value judgement regarding something for which you have very little information to go on! Bruce: It is a mere observation based on your statements about an approach you admit not to have followed. Madhya: It's quite a big claim, Bruce! I don't believe we've ever even corresponded before. We certainly haven't met. Wouldn't you require more information to propose such a judgement? Bruce: It's not a judgement, it's an observation based on your own words. Madhya: Ah, Bruce! You leave me nearly speechless! Bruce: Ah, Madhya, do consider that might be an improvement over this hyper-intellectual fugue you've posted. :-)