[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by taylor

My point is that it has limitations. What I mean by the mind surviving on dualities is that we think logically with language. Language needs a subject and an object. It needs categories of thought. Without division and particulars, language cannot work. And language, thought, and the intellect are very very useful. I hope this makes sense.

But we don't think with language. Neither is language logical; it's just the expression of concepts. Thought is more than language: I'm sure you've had thoughts that you couldn't quite figure out how to express. In a way, all you have to do is make up a word to capture it, but then you'll have some trouble explaining it to others.

You might want to look into the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis. Wikipedia has a fine article on it.

Originally Posted by taylor

Another mistake the objective mind makes is this: a thought represents reality.

But why does it follow that, because a mind sees the world objectively, then it would mistake a thought for reality? You're assuming this mistake occurs when you've neither defined the objective mind nor shown that it makes this mistake.

Originally Posted by taylor

[The mind] does not see reality.

This is a very strange statement, to me: if your mind does not see reality, then what is it that's seeing reality? It's interesting that you seem to be discussing this in terms of a non-subjective perspective. Am I mistaking that?

Originally Posted by taylor

The way I finally understood what he meant, was by reading David Hawkins, which I highly, highly recommend.

I'll put him on my reading list. Those ten levels do look rather interesting. Unfortunately, he's going behind a very large stack.

Originally Posted by taylor

When you realize that, you see that there are no other people, no separation between things, there is nothing, but this complete, silent, awareness. This awareness is the only you, that there really is. It's the only anything that really is. The ego, or the personal self is just a body and thought process that is contained within the awareness. Actually that's not true, but language breaks down quite quickly when discussing nonduality.

I think I understood this part fine. Don't be so quick to say language is incapable of expressing a concept: explanation has more to do with the parties involved than language. If you're going to be anti-language, read Wittgenstein. He'd probably agree with you.

Originally Posted by taylor

Have you ever been reading for hours at a time and then all of a sudden something interrupts you, "Oh yeah. Life is going on." You were so caught up in concepts, that you forgot the real thing. Well enlightenment is like that, only a million times more intense.

Did you just suggest that enlightenment is not the real thing? I know you didn't just say that.

Originally Posted by taylor

And for your information let me quote what Hawkins says about Love taken from Transcending The Levels of Consciousness.

Thank you. I find this statement most fascinating--"Love is therefore inclusive and progressively expands the sense of self."--because it's practically a repeat of a part of my own definition. I call it, unsurprisingly, compassion.